Football and American Politics

[PDudkowski]

I'm starting this thread in hopes of starting a quality dialogue on what is wrong with American Politics.

We love analogies and I've used this one plenty of times before. Our politics (not to be confused with our political system) are like the big game on Sunday. Most folks would prefer to sit between the 35 yard lines. Not because they are wishy washy but because this is where the action is. This is where you can see the big picture. The camera men and producer does not focus on these fans. Instead, they take you to the "Dawg Pound" in Cleveland where the noisiest fans watch the game. They are the extreme and they reside at both ends. Why do the fewest get the most exposure. Simply because they are the loudest. They speak and act for no one but themselves. I hope this is becoming clear in how the big game relates to politics!

Now lets say that the opposing teams have their fans at one end or the other. They'll never hear each other but will continually shout at each other, as if they can influence what the opposition's fans will do or think. Okay, enough football.

We have become such a polarized nation that give and take is a rare commodity in politics. Each side in our system can not find common ground. Don't let 9-11 fool you. It may have looked like unity but it was an illusion. We, the citizens have joined the games of the Congress and all other aspects of American politics in the same way. The people over here are never wrong and the others are always wrong. We can never give in on that point. But wait, the others say they are always right and the others, always wrong. Both sides have their heels dug in. Neither will give an inch. Truth is, both are sometimes wrong and sometimes right. There are no absolutes. The truth does not belong to the left or right. It just is. How do we respectfully listen to the other side, try to understand their position and work out a compromise. Folks, if we can't, the politics of America today will drag us down in the sewer with it. I'm not ready to go down the drain. I am willing to compromise.

Since I'm not ashamed of what I say, do or write, it might help for you to know that I was raised a Democrat. Not a liberal in the deragatory sense. I am ashamed of today's leadership in that party and also the Republican party, whom both seem to be lap dogs for their own extremes. They call them the base but they aren't. The base are those good citizens who prefer to sit between the 35's. The silent majority of each party. I want my party back. I want another FDR, Truman and Kennedy. They weren't always right but no one threatened to go to Canada if they were elected.

Please try to refrain from the tired innuendo and insults. I really want to know what you think, from your gut. Not the cry of the heard. No way in hell does Obama get my vote.

[PaulR]

I agree with you. I am Republican by heart and conviction. Despite this, I do not agree with everything they have done. They certainly are not without fault. My biggest upset with the Republican Party today is their stance on illegal immigration. I believe that by the nature of their presence, they are criminals and should be removed. I am infuriated that our current leadership feels they are valued contributors to our society. I have nothing against immigrants. In fact, I feel that the program should be revamped so that it is easier and less timely to get a visa. The fact that we have MILLIONS of undocumented people in our country is a drain upon our social service, medical, penal, and school systems. Most importantly, they are a threat to our National Security.

I dont care if our leader is Democratic or Republican. All I care about is that my leader does not threaten my current liberties(such as my right to bear arms) and preserves our nation's identity(Christmas Trees and all), while going for as little government as possible. In my opinion, currently the Democratic side is Socialist in nature and if allowed to, they would turn our country into a two bit Socialist state(like others I will not name so not to offend anyone). They have already ruined our country enough(Affirmative Action and life long social service benefits for people who are able to work).

There are my two cents.

Paul

[SlightlyCatholic]

The following is from an Immigration Reform Statement given by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

"The United States Catholic Bishops Conference (USCCB) believes that meaningful immigration reform must properly balance the right to migrate and the right to regulate migration. Thus, the USCCB opposes 'enforcement only' immigration policies because they lack proper accommodation of the right to migrate. Instead, the USCCB supports 'comprehensive' immigration policies that pare valid enforcement laws with fair and generous legalization measures. The U.S. Catholic Bishops have outlined various elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. The key elements of comprehensive reform advocated by the Bishops are:

Earned Legalization: An earned legalization program with a path to citizenship would require unauthorized workers to work for several years, take English courses, and pay a fine in order to participate in the program. Such a program would help stabilize the workforce, promote family unity, and bring a large population 'out of the shadows,' as members of their communities.

Enforcement: The Bishops support the legitimate and important role of the United States government in enforcing immigration law at the border and in the interior. The Bishops also believe that by replacing illegal migration with legal migration, law enforcement will be better able to focus upon those who truly threaten public safety: drug and human traffickers, smugglers, and would-be terrorists. Any enforcement measures must be targeted, proportional, and humane.

Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreign-born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.

Family-based immigration reform: It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family-based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in the family-based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.

Addressing Root Causes: Congress should examine the root causes of migration, such as wage inequities and the lack of job opportunities in sending countries, and seek long-term solutions. The antidote to the problem of illegal immigration is sustainable economic development in sending countries. Ideally, migration should be driven by choice, not necessity.

Restoration of Due Process Rights: Due process rights taken away by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) should be restored, particularly the use of judicial discretion in deportation proceedings."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole statement can be found at: http://www.usccb.org/mrs/legal.shtml. My personal opinion is one that is true to the above propositions. While it is certainly true that I am in solidarity with those above me in the Church, I also think the above reforms simply make sense. These people are human persons, and I think our current methods of detainment and deportation are much too harsh (even if their intent, to enforce the law of the United States, is good). Sometimes the letter of the law can replace the image of the human being with that of the data chart and the statistic. It is very easy to label a person as a "problem", a "number", or an "illegal". I think recognizing the humanity of all individuals attempting to come to the United States, legal or illegal, would do a lot of good in regards to constructive immigration reform. Just my two cents.

[PaulR]

I agree with all the elements that you have listed except for the first and last areas. Change is urgently needed in our immigration policies. This is no surprise.

However, people illegally in this country are criminals by the simple act of being here. It is like a hungry person breaking into the your house from the back door to steal your food. If the person would have simply knocked and asked, most likely he would be fed. Being in need and asking for help is one thing. Sneaking in from behind and simply taking is criminal, regardless of the sympathy we may feel for them. People who sneak into the the country contrary to the rules are by definition illegal. These men and women should not be allowed to remain in the US while many others are patiently waiting years in the currently broken system to gain access the legal way. Illegals should be expelled as sound as they are found, and moved to the back of the line if they want to apply and come in the right way. Their behavior should not be rewarded, regardless of the circumstance. This is basic first grade logic here...

[SlightlyCatholic]

Their behavior should not be rewarded, regardless of the circumstance. This is basic first grade logic here...

Their behavior isn't being rewarded, it's being taken into consideration with many other factors and considerations. Notice how the word "earned" is used in the first element of the proposal. Nobody gets a "get out of US Customs Free Card", but does it really make sense to kick out EVERY single illegal in this country? I think we're much better off trying to synthesize than segregate. Even if the appearance of a reward is present, one needs to look at the underlying issues. These people are not simply boxes that UPS can ship out of the country.

[jjs6996]

I agree with Dudkowski and PaulR

[PaulR]

Their behavior isn't being rewarded, it's being taken into consideration with many other factors and considerations. Notice how the word "earned" is used in the first element of the proposal. Nobody gets a "get out of US Customs Free Card", but does it really make sense to kick out EVERY single illegal in this country? The manpower needed to do that would rival the Jews being rounded up in Europe by the Nazi secret police...and yes, that's a deliberate parallel. I think we're much better off trying to synthesize than segregate. Even if the appearance of a reward is present, one needs to look at the underlying issues. These people are not simply boxes that UPS can ship out of the country.

Why does every conversation that involves the suggestion of people being held to some sort of accountability have to be brought on parallel with Nazi Germany? My Grandparents and Great Grandparents were there and from their stories, there is no parallel to what they witnessed and what we are talking about here. The Jews were law abiding citizens of their respective nations who were brutalized and murdered for no other reason than their beliefs and ethnic backgrounds. Please dont go there with me. Doing so shows a "grasping for straws" mentality.

I feel that laws are drafted for a reason. When people commit actions that fall outside of what is deemed "legal", there is a price to be paid. It does not matter if there is one culprit or 11 million. You talk about being fair... what about the people who are waiting a decade or more to get in legally? What do they get? I feel that every illegal should get the right to come back, AFTER they are deported and fall in at the end of the line. The fact that illegals are being allowed to stay in the US is rewarding illegal behavior.

You are right... people are not boxes. They are individuals with wants and dreams... BUT... in sneaking in the back door they are criminals. It is not our fault they took the gamble to sneak here. We should not have to pay the price for their being here either.

[SlightlyCatholic]

First of all, I realize the fallaciousness of the Nazi comment...hence my removing it. You're right, they're different situations.

In regards to people waiting to get in, we can still put the illegals in the back of the line without kicking them out. I don't recall the U.S. having a maximum number of immigrants that can enter each year. Someone please correct me about that if I'm off. If anything, our flawed system is what is making the legal people wait, not the illegals. A system shouldn't be shut down by a group of people unless the system itself isn't working correctly.

I will agree with you that these people are criminals and certainly did take the gamble to come into our country. HOWEVER...what I want to know is why a conspirator of 9/11 gets due process and the average illegal immigrant looking for a better life does not. That seems a little messed up to me. Also, do you want to deport the millions of illegal Irish in downtown Boston? Nobody seems to talk about them when this issue comes up.

I think what we're looking at is a flawed system dealing with illegal action. We have to get the beam out of our eye and then take the splinter out of theirs.

[PaulR]

Hi Tim,

Unless something has changed, there is a quota of the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US annually(I addressed this issue when I was engaged to a woman from the Philippians a few years ago- In this case, I am thankful it did not work! lol) . There is a set number of immigrants allowed in from various countries per year.

I do understand your point regarding the rights of the 9/11 conspirators. I feel that it is also wrong that they now have the right of due process. I dont know what our Government was thinking there.

The beam will be out of my eyes when these people are held accountable for their crimes as we all are. Do you have any idea what the Mexican Government does do people who "sneak" in from their southern border? I do and I can tell you that they are not as gentile as what I am suggesting.

I am all about equality on EVERY level.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Ahh ok. I didn't know about the quota. Do you know where that quota is listed? A government document or something?

I understand your point about the Mexican government. However, most of the top brass in their administration are literally on drugs. However, I think we need to show that we're better than that and that we can use reason to come to a decision instead of violence (which I think for the most part we've been progressing towards).

[PaulR]

As far as the quota is concerned, you might be able to get that from the INS.

Unless I am missing something, the manner in which we deport someone is nonviolent(unless the illegal wants a fight).

[HairyEyeball]

The original thought of the thread being hijacked by the illegal invader issue, pursuing that:

Not to get ahead of ourselves, but from whence did the Church invent the 'right to migrate'? Do they really believe that the particular conceits of their sect trump the right of a sovereign nation to define its borders, or the physical and mental health requirements of those it grants passage through them?

While the cost and effort necessary to find, detain and deport in excess of thirty million illegals - over 10% of our population - by 'traditional' means would be prohibitive, it is not impossible. Impractical yes, but unnecessary - with laws currently in force in some States, like Arizona's Proposition 200 and the 'E-Verify' Act, many will 'self-deport', and are. The costs to each of us who pay taxes is staggering: In Arizona alone, the unreimbursed cost of 'health care' - for 'non-emergency' treatment, just the general run of common colds, cuts and bruises, aches and pains, not to mention easily preventable endemic conditions - was over thirty million dollars in 2003 alone. Other costs are detailed at: http://johnpinto.com/borders.html

The 'costs' hardly end there, though: Unions, taxes, and other factors have pushed the cost of even basic goods and services to the point of the absurd - and in an irrevocable cycle, they have in turn pushed wages higher, causing higher prices necessary to meet that payroll. That small portion of the illegal presence who will work will willingly do so for (tax free) cash, at a rate well below the 'going' rate. Through greed, or desparation, the employer may well choose to lay off his 'expensive' hired help in favor of cheap, illegal workers, not only saving payroll, but the myriad of taxes each legal employee generates. That equates to fewer citizens working and contributing to the tax base, more receiving benefits from it, and either higher taxes on, or devalued currency to the economy (or more realistically, both).

Then, there is the question of rewarding criminal behavior: Would the government settle for a citizen refusing to pay taxes for five years, agreeing - when and if caught - to accepting under 40%, and send him home with a smile and a 'go and sin no more' - and a higher paying job? That's exactly what the last 'amnesty' proposed we do for illegals. Perhaps it's a paleolithic morality, but the thought of rewarding criminals just strikes me as wrong. Downright reprehensible, in fact, not to mention illogical: How does rewarding someone for committing a crime say anything other than 'crime does pay? How does demonstrating an institutional contempt for one law do aught but breed contempt for all law?

As to 'caught and convicted' illegals 'going to the back of the line' - nope. They are, after all, criminals - and we have every right to deny criminals entry, with all the rights and privileges that entails. As has repeatedly been pointed out, legal immigrants wait for years to enter and become productive citizens.

Finally, not every 'illegal alien' here is Mexican or South American - there are the comparitive handful of Irish mentioned, the uncountable numbers from 'terrorist' nations and of terrorist ideologies, the millions from China and the former SSRs.

The argument is made that 'we are a nation of immigrants', and that is a true and valid statement - but those immigrants entered under the laws in force at the time; those immigrants brought new 'ingredients' to the 'melting pot' - they became 'Americans', whatever they had been, and American culture adapted, in some slight ways, in return; they learned English, and sent their children to learn English, and to gather the knowledge and wealth that were, in ways that were, uniquely American.

Bending back to the original question, whether it was a lack of 'new frontiers to conquer', the dumbing down of the education establishment, the galloping socialism in government, the advent of 'labor saving devices' that provided unprecedented leisure time, the concentration of mass media into relatively few hands, or a combination of all, the majority of the populace became not only physically, but mentally lazy - quick to digest and parrot predigested 'opinions' laid out for them by a self-described 'elite', whose greater wealth, as they believed, somehow endowed them with a 'higher morality', a delusion that what they believed was 'good for them' had to, ipso facto, be best for society - a fun-house mirror image of 'socialism will work if the right people are in charge'...and the conceit that they are 'the right people'.

Single-issue demogogues abound, as Paul has pointed out, on both ends of the political spectrum, and the sheeple, herd animals that they be, follow them unquestioningly and vociferously. In microcosm, this forum displays the 'cure', should society as a whole elect to invest the effort: If you have an opinion, or a position, unless you can present the facts, quote 'chapter and verse' and be prepared to demonstrate how they support that opinion, that position, unless you can do so in a calm, rational manner, you're just static and will be ignored. If you cannot attack an individual's argument on its merit, disprove the facts or demonstrate fault in the logic, and choose to attack the individual, you forfeit credibility - nobody listens.

In the 'real world' the lunatic fringe Paul describes only has the credence 'those between the 35 yard lines' give it: Their 'politics' exist only as a vehicle to make themselves heard. Ignore the ranting, they change their issue. Ignore them long enough, their 'power' is gone.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Not to get ahead of ourselves, but from whence did the Church invent the 'right to migrate'? Do they really believe that the particular conceits of their sect trump the right of a sovereign nation to define its borders, or the physical and mental health requirements of those it grants passage through them?

I know better than to argue with Hairy, but I will say that the Church didn't invent the right to migrate, something that has been part of the human experience since the Ice Age ended and people were able to settle wherever they wanted. The only difference now is that countries have carved up that land and laws have been enacted to restrict that ability (most of which are there for a good reason). Also, I want to stress the Catholic Church's obligation to the human person around the world. It's a worldwide presence and merely trying to fulfill the function of that presence by confronting universal issues. We focus on immigration in our nation because it affects us directly, but it's a problem almost everywhere. The Church is merely trying to confront and solve a problem which is currently plaguing all involved, illegals and law enforcement alike...but I don't want to start a debate over religion's interaction with politics. Perhaps on another thread?

My apologies for hijacking the thread, by the way. I "took the football and ran with it" because I thought it was applicable, if in a small way.

[dukesix]

Interesting on how both parties react to so many issues. Though, IMHO, one can hardly tell the difference between the two anymore. With the MoveOn.org bunch hijacking the Democrat's...and the Republican's becoming more and more clueless as each year passes by.....I'm amazed that a strong third party candidate (i.e. a wild card) hasn't established himself/herself as of yet and filled the vacuum. Then again, it all boils down to cash $...and the Elephant's and the Donkey's have all the cash right now.....if anything.....and, if the latest polls are correct.....the Republican's need a 'Hail Mary' pass at the moment.

Dukesix

[Spider]

Do they really believe that the particular conceits of their sect trump the right of a sovereign nation to define its borders, or the physical and mental health requirements of those it grants passage through them?



I believe Henry VIII had some similar concerns that led to our split with the Rum and Cokes.

[SlightlyCatholic]

I believe Henry VIII had some similar concerns that led to our split with the Rum and Cokes.

That is true. The Church frowns upon divorce, especially when it's only done because your wife didn't give you a son. Somehow I don't think he was up for adopting...

[Spider]

That is true. The Church frowns upon divorce, especially when it's only done because your wife didn't give you a son. Somehow I don't think he was up for adopting...

Only? When you're talking dynastic politics there is no 'only' about that unless you mean it's the only thing that matters in a sort of Vince Lombardi way.

Bold : Keeping this thread on track, the title being "Football and American Politics".

[SlightlyCatholic]

Only? When you're talking dynastic politics there is no 'only' about that unless you mean it's the only thing that matters in a sort of Vince Lombardi way.

Bold : Keeping this thread on track, the title being "Football and American Politics".

I'll let this go...it's not a religious debate anyway. We need to get back on track so I don't end up hijacking the thread.