Conference back40::soapbox

    Quality of Life is the key here.  Have you noticed that the quality of
    life has diminished in the last 30 years or so?  For all of us as a
    population in this country to move ahead and not only raise our
    standard of living but address our problems, crime, drugs, gangs, urban
    decay,  we have got to control our borders.  More and more people
    feeding out of the same bowl, just means less per person for everyone. 
    We have immigration quotas.  If people feel they need to be raised,
    raise them.  But do it legally. 
    
    Take the kids out of school, send them to their home country.  If you
    or I were in England or Spain or whatever without Visas or permits,
    would we be shocked to see our kids banned from the local school?  Of
    course not.  We all know right from wrong.  Lets quit pussyfooting
    around about it.  We have a big mess to deal with, lets get it handled
    and get on with life.  It wont get better if we don't deal with it,
    only worse.   

    
    You notice how quickly Oz deported the boat people, with
    nary a whimper from the ones castigating 187.

    
    Oz has a reputation for being, ummm, firm (shall we say) in 
    matters of immigration.
    

           <<< Note 27.2 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>

    
>    You notice how quickly Oz deported the boat people, with
>    nary a whimper from the ones castigating 187.

He didn't deport them. He stopped them from reaching our shores. No one has 
a problem with that because it's the law. I shouldn't say "no one." some 
did object with credible reasoning that these people were persecuted in 
their homeland. Clinton probably felt that way too, but opted for the 
politically less damaging stashing them at Guantanamo.

    
    Oz deported a batch to Vietnam early in the week, 
    frog-marching them in handcuffs onto the plane.
    
    The Beeb said it was about 50, with more to follow.
    
    

Note 27.1 by ROMEOS::STONE_JE 
    
    >Quality of Life is the key here.  Have you noticed that the quality of
    >life has diminished in the last 30 years or so?  For all of us as a
    >population in this country to move ahead and not only raise our
    >standard of living but address our problems, crime, drugs, gangs, urban
    >decay,  we have got to control our borders.  More and more people
    
    
    lets get something straight right now. the quality of life HAS NOT
    diminished in the last 30 years or so for the VAST majority of the
    country. in most areas its gotten quite a lot better. your area is one
    of the major exceptions. the quality of life there has gone right down
    the sewer for a lot of reasons - some within kaliphs control, some not
    (but most were/are). so quite crying in your tar pit, its of your own
    making.
    
    187 is the logical result of a rapidly disintegrating society that
    lashes back, HARD, at one aspect of the problem. frankly, i think its
    to late for kaliph. in the long hot summer of '95 kaliph could "burn
    baby burn" like never before. you heard it here first.

    By quality of life, I mean the the average guy has to work x number of
    hours to pay for the basics of life.  I mean that the average guy can
    buy a house, a car, take a vacation,  save a few bucks and feel his job
    is secure if he works hard and keeps his cool.  
    
    In the last 30 years, these basics have gotten harder to attain,  and
    in most cases, it takes a 2 or 3 incomes to get the job done.  
    
    This is pretty common knowledge everywhere. even in Minnesota.  maybe
    you should get out more.  Have you ever spent anytime (years) other
    then in the farm belt?

Note 27.7 by ROMEOS::STONE_JE 
    
    >By quality of life, I mean the the average guy has to work x number of
    >hours to pay for the basics of life.  I mean that the average guy can
    >buy a house, a car, take a vacation,  save a few bucks and feel his job
    >is secure if he works hard and keeps his cool.  
    >
    >In the last 30 years, these basics have gotten harder to attain,  and
    
    no they have NOT! i don't know where you get your economic figures but
    your way off the mark here. buying things like homes, autos, tee vees,
    etc. is much easier now then ever before. easier from a cost
    standpoint. some people may think its harder to attain these things
    because they have been conditioned to believe the DESERVE such luxuries
    of life. i know of many yuppie lawyers that are sorely disappointed
    about having a 180K home, club memebership, a beemer for themselves and
    a ford taurus for the SO. their disappointment is in having to choose
    between a beemer for the SO or the club membership. that's why the SO
    drives the ford.
    
    >This is pretty common knowledge everywhere. even in Minnesota.  maybe
    >you should get out more.  Have you ever spent anytime (years) other
    >then in the farm belt?
    
    not that its any of your GD business, but yes. right in your backyard,
    so to speak.

    
    Gene is not correct.  Buying power of Americans is an economic
    variable kept by the US Government, and it has declined steadily
    for many years.  It will decline again this year, by 1.5-2 per cent,
    which is not much different from any of the last ten.
    
      bb

    > Buying power of Americans is an economic variable kept by the US
    > Government, and it has declined steadily for many years.
    
    Over two decades, in fact.  That's one of the reasons there are so many
    two-wage-earner households, nowadays.
    
    DougO

    >Gene is not correct.  Buying power of Americans is an economic
    >variable kept by the US Government, and it has declined steadily
    >for many years.  It will decline again this year, by 1.5-2 per cent,
    >which is not much different from any of the last ten.
    
     wages/hour does not equate to buying power. it wasn't long ago a 25in
    color tee vee was over 1,000 dollars. they are less than half that now.
    your oversimplifying the issue with a single government-speak stat. 
    
    who out there isn't living more comfortably or in more luxury than 30
    years ago? damn few.

    	Up until Gene's last reply, I was leaning towards the opposing
    	replies.  But Gene has an excellent point too.
    
    	Anyone remember when simple add/subtract/multiply/divide
    	calculators were $49 -- in 1975 (for example) dollars?
    
    	Who would have dreamed at that time that having a computer in 
    	your home would be within the financial reach of most people?
    
    	Yes, the buying power of the average hourly wage has dropped.
    	But the cost of what the wage-earner wants -- especially in
    	the area of luxuries -- has also dropped in many areas.

Besides electronics, what has dropped in price in the the last 20 years?

    > Besides electronics, what has dropped in price in the the last 20
    > years?
    
    DEC stock?  {owwww}
    
    I believe the Gov't selects a "market basket" of goods/services to
    determine how "well off" we're supposed to be.  They can change the
    "market basket" to manipulate the numbers.  
    
    I think the cost of Shelter, or housing, considered one of the
    necessities screws up the stats.

    > Besides electronics,
    
    	Considering that we live in an electronic society, you are
    	throwing out too much with this qualification.

    
    hpw are you measuring the price?
    
    by % of net personal income? 
    in constant year 19nn dollars?
    as a % of GNP?

    Consumer electronics have gone down in price, but how many times does
    one buy a TV?  Not monthly.
    
    Housing is up.  Cars are up.  (You don't buy them monthly, but you
    generally pay them off monthly.)  Food is up.  Utilities are up. 
    Clothing is up.  Books and magazines are up.  Toys are up.  Household
    furnishings are up.

Note 27.17 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA
    
    >Housing is up.  Cars are up.  (You don't buy them monthly, but you
    >generally pay them off monthly.)  Food is up.  Utilities are up. 
    >Clothing is up.  Books and magazines are up.  Toys are up.  Household
    >furnishings are up.
    
    hogwash chels. sure the price tag is up over 30 years. but the
    purchasing power of the average american is up significantly more -
    relatively speaking. and don't forget the quality aspect of it as well.
    that's an intangible that garbage like gummint stats don't take into
    consideration.
    
    i repeat my question. how many people feel their buying power has
    decreased over the last 30 years or so? based on the quantity and
    quality of goods i see in most places, (even people on welfare mostly
    have color tee vee, phones, plumbing, etc.) hardly any at all. the
    statement that our collective buying power is diminishing year over
    year is just more government rhetoric to convince the masses that by
    giving more to the government they will somehow rectify this alledged
    problem. utter nonsense.

Haag, housing is way up relative to earning power.

Note 27.19 by NOTIME::SACKS
    
>Haag, housing is way up relative to earning power.
    
    not true. in certain segments of the country (mostly on the coasts) the
    cost of housing skyrocketed a few years ago. but in most of the country
    things are much more stable and predictable. cost of average house in
    mpls/st. paul doubled in last 24 years. most peoples income more than
    doubled in that time.

    Re: .18
    
    >based on the quantity and quality of goods i see in most places,
    
    I could go out and buy dozens of paperback books for the price of one TV.
    Does a person with dozens of paperback books have more buying power
    than a person with a TV?  No.  So quantity of stuff is not an accurate 
    measure of buying power.

Note 27.21 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "
    
    >I could go out and buy dozens of paperback books for the price of one TV.
    >Does a person with dozens of paperback books have more buying power
    >than a person with a TV?  No.  So quantity of stuff is not an accurate 
    >measure of buying power.
    
    you "could". but statistically you won't. how many families, given
    money and choice, would buy a tee vee vs a few dozen books? i'd say
    about 99.999%. your analogy is pointless and useless as a measurement.

    Re: .22
    
    >but statistically you won't
    
    Empirically, I have.
    
    >your analogy is pointless and useless as a measurement.
    
    First, my analogy is not a measurement.  It is a rebuttal.  Second,
    you're wrong.  You wanted to use quantity and quality as measurements
    of buying power; I showed that quantity is not a valid measurement of
    buying power.

Note 27.23 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA
    
    >First, my analogy is not a measurement.  It is a rebuttal.  Second,
    >you're wrong.  You wanted to use quantity and quality as measurements
    >of buying power; I showed that quantity is not a valid measurement of
    >buying power.
    
    nonsense. the average american home has 1.5 tee vee today. 20 years ago
    that was less than 1.0. skipping the fact that tee vee are of much
    higher quality today, i'd say quantity for any item(s) measured across
    the population as a whole is practical. comparing tee vees to books is
    senseless. you did take econ 101 in school did you not?

    	Certainly not proof of anything, but 30 years ago my father was
    	my current age.  What did we have as a family on his single income?
    
    	5 kids.  A b&w TV.  One car (chevy wagon).  A 3-bedroom, one
    	bath ranch-style house (no garage).  A washer (no dryer).  
    
    	What does my family have on my single income?  4 kids.  Color
    	TV.  (Cable is an option that I have not chosen.)  2 cars 
    	(olds wagon, datsun commuting car.)  A 5-bedroom, 3 bath
    	2-story house with 2-car garage.  Washer and dryer.  Microwave.  
    	Extra freezer in the garage.  Two phone lines.  Answering 
    	machine.  Macintosh quadra, DEC laser-printer, fax modem.
    
    	On top of that look at all the neat eletronic gadgetry that
    	are almost considered staples in many household -- nintendo (or
    	other game system), CD player, cellular phone.  Also many
    	kitchens have trash compactors, electric knives, electric
    	knife sharpeners, electric can openers, food processors, etc.

    Re: .24
    
    >i'd say quantity for any item(s) measured across the population as a 
    >whole is practical. 
    
    No, it isn't.  Twenty or thirty years ago, lots of people had 
    eight-tracks.  Now, hardly anyone does.  I guess buying power has gone 
    down.  But compared to the 1920s, when _nobody_ had eight tracks, I
    guess buying power was just astronomical.

>    No, it isn't.  Twenty or thirty years ago, lots of people had 
>    eight-tracks.  Now, hardly anyone does.  I guess buying power has gone 
>    down.  
    
    	First of all, 8-tracks have been replaced by a better technology
    	(casette tapes) which have been replaced by yet a better technology
    	(CD.)  And today you can buy CD players for fewer 1994 dollars
    	than you would have had to spend in 1974 dollars to get an 8-track
    	of comparable (relative) quality.
    
    	Secondly, you are stubbornly sticking to "buying power" while
    	Gene is stubbornly sticking to "quality of life".  I'd have
    	to say that you amply proved Gene's point, at least in the area 
    	of entertainment quality.

    .27
    
    > you can buy CD players for fewer 1994 dollars
    
    just in case someone has forgotten, the technology that makes such
    value possible is a product of the space program that so many of us
    want to trash because it's "wasted out there in space."

    	Thanks, Dick.  There is another improvement in our quality
    	of life.  Satellite transmissions!  Instant information!
    	Major networks giving live coverage of classified marine 
    	landings in Somalia...
    
    	Nevermind...

    DATE=11/21/94
    TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT
    NUMBER=2-169660
    TITLE=REPUBLICANS - IMMIGRATION ISSUE (L ONLY)
    BYLINE=JANE BERGER
    DATELINE=WASHINGTON
    CONTENT=
    VOICED AT:
    
    INTRO:  TWO PROMINENT MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAVE WARNED
    THEIR COLLEAGUES THAT THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION COULD
    DAMAGE THE PARTY'S CHANCES TO CONSIDATE THE ELECTORAL GAINS THEY
    HAVE MADE IN CONGRESS AND IN STATEHOUSES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
    CORRESPONDENT JANE BERGER REPORTS FORMER CABINET MEMBERS WILLIAM
    BENNETT AND JACK KEMP SPOKE AT A WASHINGTON NEWS CONFERENCE AND
    DENOUNCED A NEW VOTER-APPROVED REFERENDUM IN CALIFORNIA THAT CUTS
    OFF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND MOST SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGAL
    IMMIGRANTS.
    
    
    TEXT:  THE TWO REPUBLICANS SAY THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO CONTROL
    ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION -- BUT THE ANSWER IS  NOT  MORE LAWS TO DENY
    FREE BENEFITS TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS, INCLUDING MEDICAL CARE AND
    EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.   A FEDERAL COURT HAS BLOCKED
    IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW CALIFORNIA LAW, SINCE ITS
    CONSTITUTIONALITY HAS ALREADY BEEN CHALLENGED IN COURT.  BUT THE
    LAW HAS REVIVED A DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES ABOUT THE ISSUE OF
    ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
    
    MR. KEMP AND MR. BENNETT SAY SOME REPUBLICANS BELIEVE IT WOULD BE
    POLITICALLY POPULAR TO MAKE IMMIGRATION CONTROL A NATIONAL ISSUE,
    BUT ADD THAT WOULD BE A MISTAKE.
    
    
    MR. KEMP NOTED THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LOST HUGE NUMBERS OF
    VOTERS WHEN IT TURNED ITS BACK ON NEW IMMIGRANTS EARLY IN THIS
    CENTURY -- AND IN THE 1950'S AND 1960'S WHEN MANY PARTY MEMBERS
    REFUSED TO SUPPORT VOTING RIGHTS FOR BLACKS AND OTHER CIVIL
    RIGHTS MEASURES.   MR. KEMP SAID UNLESS THE REPUBLICANS BROADEN
    THE PARTY'S BASE OF SUPPORT, THEY RISK BECOMING THE EQUIVALENT OF
    THE KNOW-NOTHING PARTY OF THE MID-1800'S THAT WAS ANTI-BLACK,
    ANTI-CATHOLIC, AND ANTI-IMMIGRANT.
    
     
    
             THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS  NO  CHANCE OF BEING A MAJORITY
             PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY WITHOUT BEING THE PARTY OF
             IMMIGRANTS, WITHOUT BEING THE PARTY OF MEN AND WOMEN WHO
             SEEK CIVIL AND LEGAL AND VOTING AND EQUAL RIGHTS, A
             PARTY THAT IS INCLUSIONARY,  NOT  EXCLUSIONARY.  AND
             NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT WHITE MALES VOTED FOR
             REPUBLICANS, CANDIDATES WHO RAN ON INCLUSION AND
             EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY AND REACHING OUT TO BLACK AND
             BROWN AND IMMIGRANT VOTES WON OVERWHELMINGLY.  AND
             CANDIDATES WHO DID  NOT  REACH OUT TO MEN AND WOMEN OR
             IMMIGRANTS OR OF COLOR OR MINORITY STATUS LOST.  THEY
             LOST.
    
    
    ECHOING MR. KEMP'S REMARKS, MR. BENNETT SAID LAWS AGAINST ILLEGAL
    IMMIGRATION SHOULD BE FIRMLY ENFORCED.  BUT HE SAID  LAWS LIKE
    PROPOSITION 187 IN CALIFORNIA SIMPLY DO NOT  WORK.
    
             IT (PROPOSITION 187) IS SUPERFICIALLY ATTRACTIVE.  BUT
             IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM.  IT'S  NOT  EFFECTIVE IN
             SOLVING THE PROBLEM.  YOU STATE THE PROBLEM AS A PROBLEM
             OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.  ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION -- THAT IS
             A PROBLEM.  AND TO RESPOND TO THAT, YOU DENY MEDICAL
             SERVICES TO PEOPLE AND EDUCATION TO KIDS.  ASSUME 187 IS
             PERFECTLY EFFECTIVE.  IF IT'S PERFECTLY EFFECTIVE, ITS
             EFFECT WILL BE TO DENY MEDICAL SERVICES TO PEOPLE AND
             EDUCATION TO KIDS.  YOU STILL HAVE A PROBLEM OF ILLEGAL
             IMMIGRATION, YOU HAVE  NOT  ADDRESSED THAT PROBLEM.
    
     
    MR. KEMP AND MR. BENNETT CALLED FOR TOUGHER MEASURES TO CONTROL
    THE U-S BORDER, QUICKER DEPORTATIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS,
    PARTICULARLY THOSE CONVICTED OF CRIMES, A CRACKDOWN ON FRAUDULENT
    IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS, AND CREATION OF A POSITIVE ECONOMIC
    CLIMATE ABROAD TO ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO STAY IN THEIR
    HOMELANDS.
    
    
    BOTH MEN SAID LEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD BE WARMLY EMBRACED BY THE
    REPUBLICAN PARTY BECAUSE THEY MAKE POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
    U-S ECONOMY, TEND TO LIVE IN STRONG, STABLE FAMILIES AND POSSESS
    IMPRESSIVE ENERGY AND A SPIRIT OF HARD WORK. (SIGNED)
    
    NEB/JB/GPT
    
    21-Nov-94 2:28 PM EST (1928 UTC)
    NNNN
    
    Source: Voice of America

    
    >No, it isn't.  Twenty or thirty years ago, lots of people had 
    >eight-tracks.  Now, hardly anyone does.  I guess buying power has gone 
    >down.  But compared to the 1920s, when _nobody_ had eight tracks, I
    >guess buying power was just astronomical.
    
    oh brother. i guess you didn't take econ 101. what a rathole chels.
    would you please answer the question. how many peoples in this country
    do you think are living with less than they had 20-30 years ago? less
    home? less material things? less transportation? i'd be willing to bet
    that just about everyone, INCLUDING those on the government subsidy
    food chain, are living MUCH better. how anyone can equate that to a
    decrease in america's purchasing power is lunacy. that's like saying
    our quality of life and standard of living has steadily decreased over
    the last 30 years. 
    
    i will admit that there pockets of our society where the quality of
    life has been dropping. however, if you look closely you will see that
    those areas, and peoples, are generally the ones government is spending
    so much money on trying to improve. it should be obvious to one and all
    that the day government improves those areas and makes them competitive
    with mainstream america will be the day pigs fly in iowa.

    Re: .27
    
    >8-tracks have been replaced by a better technology (casette tapes) 
    >which have been replaced by yet a better technology (CD.)  
    
    Exactly my point.  Technology progresses, so it doesn't make sense to
    compare ownership of technical products across decades.
    
    >And today you can buy CD players for fewer 1994 dollars than you would 
    >have had to spend in 1974 dollars to get an 8-track of comparable 
    >(relative) quality.
    
    So if you have a person with a CD player and a person with an 8-track,
    the person with the 8-track has more buying power.  Thank you.
    
    >you are stubbornly sticking to "buying power"
    
    I thought that was the issue at hand.
    
    >while Gene is stubbornly sticking to "quality of life"
    
    If Gene is talking about "quality of life," then why is he trying to
    use TV -- which he despises -- as a measurement?

    Re: .31
    
    >how many peoples in this country do you think are living with less
    >than they had 20-30 years ago? 
    
    Not many.  But then, as people age, their income tends to increase, a
    natural consequence of promotions and raises over the years.  If you
    want a valid comparison, look at someone in their 20s at each period.
    
    My sister graduated from college this June.  It took her all summer to
    find a job.  She now works in a museum, making around $5 an hour. 
    Compare that to the typical college graduate of 1974.
    
    >i'd be willing to bet that just about everyone, INCLUDING those on the 
    >government subsidy food chain, are living MUCH better.
    
    In certain areas, no doubt.
    
    >how anyone can equate that to a decrease in america's purchasing power 
    >is lunacy
    
    Nope.  Joe has amply demonstrated that better gadgets are available
    more CHEAPLY.  It's the wonder of technology.  If you just look at
    gadgets, then people have more stuff.  But there's more to buy out
    there then just gadgets.  You have food and shelter and gas and
    transportation and clothing.

re: .30

What's wrong with these people???  If these people are here ILLEGALLY, we
don't owe them ANYTHING!  Kick their butts out!

What I don't like about prop 187 is the denial of services BEFORE determining
someone's status.

Bob

    Chelsea, in 1975 I was making $5.25 in a summer job...
    
    My, my, my.  Bill Bennett and Jack Kemp have proposed solutions to the
    illegal-immigration problem that are *exactly* what I suggested.  How
    can you possibly agree with them and disagree with me?

re .20:

I've seen statistics that indicate that people used to be able to buy houses
much sooner than they can now.  I believe this phenomenon isn't restricted
to the coasts.  Of course, there are factors other than the raw cost of
housing, such as the deregulation of banks and the resulting increase in
mortgage interest rates, the decrease in savings, etc.  But the bottom line
is that the accessibility of home ownership is way down.

	.32
        
>    Exactly my point.  Technology progresses, 
    
    	... and the quality of life improves.  Yes I've made your point,
    	and I've also made Gene's.  It's too bad you are too bull-headed
    	to realize that you are trying to make a different point from 
    	what Gene is making.
    
>    >you are stubbornly sticking to "buying power"
>    
>    I thought that was the issue at hand.
    
    	Well now you can think differently, OK?  Go back to where this
    	all started.  Gene started out by saying that the QUALITY OF
    	LIFE has improved.  He has participated in some "buying power"
    	threads, but even there his interpretation of "buying power"
    	was an overall ability to buy and acquire more today than our
    	parents could 30 years ago, for instance.  He is right.  People
    	*do* have more things today (and I will add that the things we
    	have are often superior to what was available 30 years ago.)
    	That was (and has been) Gene's point.  Do you agree that people
    	in general have more things than their counterparts of 30 years
    	ago did back then?  (I know you can split hairs with this question.  
    	I'm hoping that you are flexible enough and generous enough to 
    	know what I am asking here...)
    
    	At the same time, you are correct that the "buying power" of
    	today's average wage is less than that of 30 years ago.  I doubt
    	that many will disagree -- Gene included.  Unfortunately Gene
    	wasn't addressing that, so if you want to take issue with what
    	Gene is saying, you'd better be ready to address what *HE* is
    	saying, and not what *YOU* are saying.
    
>    If Gene is talking about "quality of life," then why is he trying to
>    use TV -- which he despises -- as a measurement?
    
    	Non sequitur.

Note 27.33 by DTRACY::CHELSEA
    
    >>how many peoples in this country do you think are living with less
    >>than they had 20-30 years ago? 
    >>Not many.  But then, as people age, their income tends to increase, a
    
    i rest my case. doesn't matter if you call it "buying power" or
    "quality of life" the american public, that's all of us collectively
    chels, are living much better today than 30 years ago. all the ratholes
    aside i am glad that we see eye to eye on that simple fact.

    Re: .37
    
    >It's too bad you are too bull-headed to realize
    
    Once you got to this point:
    
    |I thought that was the issue at hand.
    
    You should have turned right around and removed that personal comment. 
    Editors let you go backwards, too, you know.
    
    >Do you agree that people in general have more things than their 
    >counterparts of 30 years ago did back then?
    
    In general, yes, they probably have more stuff.  But I wouldn't
    consider you or Gene to be the kind of materialistic people who claim
    that more stuff gives you a better life.
    
    >Unfortunately Gene wasn't addressing that
    
    If he says something about it, he's addressing it.
    
    >>If Gene is talking about "quality of life," then why is he trying to
    >>use TV -- which he despises -- as a measurement?
    >
    >Non sequitur.
    
    No, my question most certainly does logically follow.

    Re: .38
    
    >doesn't matter if you call it "buying power" or "quality of life"
    
    The hell it doesn't.  They're two entirely separate things.
    
    >the american public, that's all of us collectively
    
    You didn't ask about all of us collectively.  You asked about those
    who were alive 20-30 years ago.  If you hadn't stopped reading at the
    first sentence, you would have known that.
    
    >are living much better today than 30 years ago.
    
    So, we won't hear any wails from you about how our society is sinking
    into a morass of immorality, right?  "Quality of life" covers an
    extremely broad spectrum.

Note 27.40 by DTRACY::CHELSEA 
    
    >>are living much better today than 30 years ago.
    >
    >So, we won't hear any wails from you about how our society is sinking
    >into a morass of immorality, right?  "Quality of life" covers an
    >extremely broad spectrum.
    
    BZZZT! pay attention chels. where did i say it couldn't be better? this
    whole rat hole was started by some idgit who stated that the buying
    power of muricans has gone down and has been declining for 30 years.
    which is nonsese. is it ideal? no. could it be better? of course. but
    to insist that we're worse off now than 30 years ago is nonsense. you
    agreed to that.

	.40
        
>    >doesn't matter if you call it "buying power" or "quality of life"
>    
>    The hell it doesn't.  They're two entirely separate things.
    
    	YES!!!!  Now you're getting it!
    
>    So, we won't hear any wails from you about how our society is sinking
>    into a morass of immorality, right?  "Quality of life" covers an
>    extremely broad spectrum.
    
    	Now this I agree with.  And not just morals and social ills,
    	but toxic buildup in our environment, loss of natural lands,
    	and so many other things.
    
    	But I'm flexible enough to know what Gene is talking about, (and
    	I expect that Gene wasn't referring to these things at all and
    	I also expect that Gene doesn't see these things as being better
    	today than 30 years ago) so I didn't see the necessity to
    	rathole into these areas.

    I just came back from the land of froots and nuts, and there are a
    whole pile of mightily pissed off people there.  Saying things like why
    doesn't it matter if a majority of the voting citizenry vote something
    in with a solid majority?
    
    They are beginning to think that the government doesn't really care
    what the people want anymore.
    
    I think the 187 thing is kind of cool.  It takes the heat off the klan
    and skinheads and puts it square on the middle class taxpayer...

    >They are beginning to think that the government doesn't really care
    >what the people want anymore.
    
    kaliph is gonna burn this summer because of this 187 stuff. you wait
    and see. emotions run VERY high on all sides.

    
    Maybe Mass is gonna burn too? Weld came out and said 187's okay by
    him...
    

    
    Not the same thing - Massachusetts population is declining.
    
    Three quarters of all illegals go to California, so you can see
    the depth of the depravity we're talking about...
    
      bb

>            <<< Note 27.18 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

    
>    i repeat my question. how many people feel their buying power has
>    decreased over the last 30 years or so? based on the quantity and

My first house I won't count here :-}

My second house was about double my annual salary (2.1n times)
The same house now sells for(it changed hand recently so I know) 3.3 times 
salary.

food and utilities as a % of my income are up

Taxes(total; income,ss,prpoerty,state-income,sales) are all higher as a %
of salary.

Amos

Note 27.47 by TIS::HAMBURGER 
    
>My second house was about double my annual salary (2.1n times)
>The same house now sells for(it changed hand recently so I know) 3.3 times 
>salary.
>
>food and utilities as a % of my income are up
>
>Taxes(total; income,ss,prpoerty,state-income,sales) are all higher as a %
>of salary.


    but amos, we are a bit unique in that we work for a company that
    appears to be dying. i know by hanging on this long i've lost thousands
    of dollars of potential income. most companies are making money and
    their employees as well. as for housing i already addressed. pockets of
    areas on both coasts are subject to widely fluctuating home prices. NOT
    SO in the vast majority of the country.

    Re: .41
    
    >where did i say it couldn't be better?
    
    Irrelevant.  You say that our quality of life is better, yet we so
    often hear about how society is deteriorating -- which means that it
    isn't as good as it was in the past.
    
    >but to insist that we're worse off now than 30 years ago is nonsense.
    >you agreed to that.
    
    I agreed that people tend to have more stuff.  Is more better?

    Re: .48
    
    >we are a bit unique in that we work for a company that appears to be 
    >dying.
    
    You think Digital is unique?  Try again.

Note 27.50  by DTRACY::CHELSEA
    
    >>You think Digital is unique?  Try again.
    
    ok. chels. don't go gettin your gander up. most companies are reaping
    profits these days and their employees are getting some benefit from
    that. dec is in the minority and is losing money right down there with
    the biggest of losers. that clouds our economic viewpoint if we let it.

    Chelsea has a goose?

    No, it would only lead to domestic conflict with the cats.

Cats would learn very quickly not to mess with the goose.

    
    izzat a trained assault goose?

    
    
    	with a detachable bill?
    
    

Federal Judge Keeps Injunction On Prop. 187 /
Initiative likely to be ruled unconstitutional, she says


Reynolds Holding, Chronicle Legal Affairs Writer 

Los Angeles 

    A federal judge agreed yesterday to continue to block the enforcement
    of  Proposition 187, ruling that the measure's denial of public
    benefits to illegal immigrants  is likely to be found unconstitutional
    at a trial that may not occur for years. 

    The preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Mariana 
    Pfaelzer in Los Angeles effectively extends the temporary order issued
    by  another judge last month. The state, however, can appeal
    yesterday's ruling, a step the  attorney's general's office is
    seriously considering in its attempt to save the highly  controversial
    but popular initiative that passed overwhelmingly November 8. 

    ``We cannot fail to give consideration to the fact that nearly 60 
    percent of the voters gave their approval to this measure,'' Pfaelzer
    said in  reading her ruling from the bench. She added, however, that
    much of the law was ``a  significant intrusion'' into the federal
    government's power over immigration. 

    Asked if the state would appeal, Deputy Attorney General Charlton 
    Holland shrugged and said he would discuss that with his clients, who
    include  the governor, the attorney general and the heads of the
    state's health and social  services departments. 

    ``It's not a very appealing order,'' he said. 

    Proposition 187 prohibits public education and nonemergency health  and
    social services to illegal immigrants. It also requires state and local 
    officials, educators and private service providers to report to federal
    immigration  authorities anyone they reasonably suspect of being an
    illegal immigrant. 

    Four Los Angeles groups are challenging the measure in federal  court,
    contending that it conflicts with federal immigration law and illegally 
    denies education to immigrant children. Proposition 187 also faces
    opposition in San  Francisco Superior Court, where three groups argue
    that the education provisions violates  the California and U.S.
    constitutions. 

    
    so much for votes meaning anything. 
    
    they only mean something if it agrees with the 
    opinions of the enlightened elite.

    or the constitution

    
    must be the invisible ink that is only visible to the elite.

    Prop. 187 definition of illegal may be its undoing

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- If the first major court ruling on Proposition
    187 is any indication, the immigration initiative could be undone by
    some of its most  obscure provisions.

    The measure's main selling point was its cutoff of state funding for
    illegal  immigrants' education, social services and non-emergency
    health care. Legally, its most  vulnerable points were generally
    thought to be the education ban and a requirement to  report suspected
    illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

    Some of those issues figured in a Los Angeles federal judge's ruling
    Wednesday  barring enforcement of most of Proposition 187, but none was
    the center of attention.

    Instead, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer was chiefly concerned
    with how the  state defined illegal immigrants and what it told them --
    two subjects that went  virtually unnoticed in the heated campaign over
    the initiative.

    Briefly put, Proposition 187 defines illegal immigrants as those who
    are neither  U.S. citizens nor lawfully admitted for permanent or
    temporary residence. The  definition appears to ignore sizable groups,
    such as applicants for political asylum and  spouses and children of
    newly legalized residents, who entered illegally but are allowed to 
    remain while federal authorities determine their status.

    When a health or welfare agency encounters a suspected illegal
    immigrant, it is supposed to tell that person, in writing, to either
    obtain legal status or leave  the country. A police officer who
    suspects an arrested person is an illegal immigrant is  supposed to
    give the same message after demanding documentation.

    What that procedure disregards, in the view of opponents, is the entire
    system  of federal laws allowing an undocumented immigrant to consult a
    lawyer, ask for a hearing  and delay or even defeat deportation on a
    variety of grounds. The apparent purpose  of the initiative's language,
    opponents argued -- and Pfaelzer agreed -- is to get  large numbers of
    people to leave quickly.

    The judge said both provisions of 187 appeared to conflict with federal
    law.  Because the flaws affect so much of the state's contact with
    immigrants, she said, there is  at least a serious question about
    whether 187 contains a California ``scheme to regulate immigration,''
    something that only the federal government can do.

    With those words, the immigrant-rights and civil-liberties lawyers who
    have  fought Proposition 187 since the day after the Nov. 8 election
    scored their most  important victory yet. They had expected to tie up
    the ban on public education, which conflicts  with a 1982 U.S. Supreme
    Court ruling, but only the most optimistic had forecast a decision
    invalidating virtually the entire initiative.

    Pfaelzer's preliminary injunction, which is to be given final form in a
    hearing  Jan. 4, blocks all of Proposition 187 except a relatively
    minor provision increasing penalties  for the sale or use of false
    immigration documents.

Published 12/16/94 in the San Jose Mercury News.

    .61
    
    That would be *good* news.

   Those are not the grounds on which I opposed Prop 187, but they lie
   within the 14th amendment (due process extended to aliens) as well.
   
   Would anyone want a United States where due process and other
   constitutional protections were *not* afforded to aliens?

    
    
    You forgot the word "illegal", Wordy...
    

    
    "Due" process - bwahaha !  A million random non-Americans illegally
    in Orange County.  If we had "due" process, they'd be deported en
    masse, since that's the law.  Since we don't follow that one, why
    should we follow any others ?
    
      bb

   Andy, does due process and the other Constitutional protections not
   apply to illegal aliens?

    
    
    What is "due process" in respect to someone who is in this country
    illegally?
    
    1.) Verify?
    2.) Detain?
    3.) Deport?
    
      What would you add to that list?
    
    

   I would add the Bill of Rights to that list.
   Do you think they do not apply even to illegals?

    	Illegals should have limited (at best) rights.  
    
    	Right to life.  Can anyone think of anything else?

    
    RE: .68
    
    Excuse me? If they follow the first three steps, which BTW, are the
    "due process" you mentioned, why would the Bill of Rights need to be
    brought up?

   No, Andy, due process involves much more than that.  For example, there
   is protection against unreasonable searches and seizures,
   self-incriminating testimony, and double jeopardy; requirements for
   warrants, grand juries, speedy trial, defense counsel; and other rights
   as well.
   
   Now: do you think that the protections afforded under the Bill of
   Rights do not apply to illegal aliens?  And do you think they should?

    	Just deport them.
    
    	Speedily.

   Without due process, Joe?

    
    No, not all of them should apply to illegals.
    
    They do not all apply to felons.  They do not all apply to children.
    
    Who are "the people" in the Constitution ?  That is the question from
    a constitutional standpoint.
    
    From a practical standpoint, saying they do is exactly equivalent to
    open borders.  There IS a logical argument for open borders.  There
    is NO logical argument for having something be illegal and making
    it illegal to try to stop it.
    
      bb

  RE: .71    
    
    So what you're saying is that it's incumbent on the U.S. Govnerment to
    prove, through all those things you mentioned, that the person is in
    fact an illegal???
    
    BTW... what was the procedure for "due process" say, 20 years ago along
    the U.S./Mexico border?... the same things you mentioned?
    

    	What exactly *is* "due process" when you catch an illegal alien,
    	Steve?
    
    	Ship 'em home.

    
    
    	Until the determination is made that they are illegal, all US laws
    and rights shold be followed. As soon as it is determined that they ARE
    illegal, BOOT THEIR *SS OUT!
    
    ed

   [I'd like to deal with you all at your level, but I'm dealing with Andy
   here...]
   
   Anent .75: Andy, I am not saying anything, I am asking you a question.
   Do you think that the due-process protections of the Bill of Rights
   apply to illegal aliens, and should they?

    
    What do I think?
    
    
    Personally, no... it should not apply although I would have to study
    the applications and am ignorant of how it might be interpreted vis. an
    illegal alien. I have been known to accede to logic and rational
    discourse...

   Andy, thank you for that answer.  You think the due-process protections
   of the Bill of Rights should not apply to illegal aliens.
   
   It brings to mind a curious paradox, though.  In the movie "Born in East
   LA," the title character is mistaken for an illegal during an INS sweep
   and dumped in Tijuana, from whence he has a humorous adventure getting
   home.  If, through error, someone is accused of being an illegal alien,
   you would have them denied their right of due process, no? You would
   deny them an attorney, deny them protection from illegal searches,
   demand that they testify against themselves...  In fact, if illegals
   were denied Constitutional protections, could we not simply shoot them
   on sight?  But of course if the person was in fact a citizen, all these
   things would be hideous breaches of their rights.
   
   The problem is, how do you know someone is an illegal before you accuse
   them?  Is the accusation alone sufficient to strip them of their rights?

re: .63

>   Would anyone want a United States where due process and other
>   constitutional protections were *not* afforded to aliens?

Change that to 'illegal aliens' and I'll say that all we owe them is food,
water, and a decent place to sleep until we can send them back home ASAP.

Bob

    
    Yes, in any discussion of aliens, PLEASE distinguish between legals
    and illegals.  The first category is, after all, a continuing source
    of citizens.  It is also the result of our deliberate ploicy, and it
    is selective - particularly geared to self-supporting, or skilled,
    or towards important allied countries.  Also political asylum.
    
    The latter, on the other hand, is likely to contain many undesirable
    qualities - no interest in citizenship, contempt for our country,
    deadbeats, those fleeing justice, those with disease, etc...
    
      bb

   An interesting point.  If you define "illegal" as one who has been
   through the process and emerged as an illegal, then I would have to
   agree that swift deportation is appropriate.  I am concerned with those
   on the other end of the pipeline, i.e., persons out walking the street,
   who may in fact be here illegally.
   
   The 14th amendment was written explicitly to extend most rights and
   protections to "persons," which the Supreme Court has ruled means legal
   and illegal aliens.  Otherwise, we could shoot foreign tourists for
   their cameras...

    
    RE: .80
    
    > In the movie...
    
    >If, through error,...
    
    There will always be anecdotes and "instances".. probability works that
    way...
    
      Due process should include ability to prove residency.... After all,
    it was easy enough for me to show my green card once in NYC when asked
    by an INS agent.... 
    

    
    Well, as a practical matter, in the US, most people never ask.
    You can go anywhere, buy/sell most goods, without anybody caring.
    
    In some situations, there is a box on a form asking citizenship, but
    often this is never doublechecked unless something else goes wrong.
    For example, if you are stopped for speeding.
    
    In other longterm serious situations, involving arrest and trial,
    large loans, employment, marriage, etc, they want proof.  This is
    the only practical time to catch anybody.  For most of us, we can
    produce a simple birth certificate, or immigration papers, or visa.
    
    This is not very different from any other country.  Name any other
    country, with any political system, that has millions of undocumented
    illegal aliens !  There are none.  Only the USA has laws flouted
    openly by entire cities in this manner.
    
      bb

.80>   Andy, thank you for that answer.  You think the due-process protections
>   of the Bill of Rights should not apply to illegal aliens.
    
    	Why specifically address this to Andy?  There are others here who
    	are saying the same things, but you dodge them.  It makes it look
    	like you want nothing except to propogate your petty squabble with
    	him.
   
>   If, through error, someone is accused of being an illegal alien,
>   you would have them denied their right of due process, no? You would
>   deny them an attorney, deny them protection from illegal searches,
>   demand that they testify against themselves...  
    
    	What does it take to be falsely accused of being an alien?  Don't
    	most people have something in their possession to validate their
    	identity?  
    
>   In fact, if illegals
>   were denied Constitutional protections, could we not simply shoot them
>   on sight?  
    
    	Now you're getting silly.  This does *NOT* enhance your argument
    	one bit.  Besides, I (at least, and maybe others who support
    	deportation) have already said that the right to life must be
    	preserved.
    
>   The problem is, how do you know someone is an illegal before you accuse
>   them?  
    
    	Sometimes it takes an accusation.  Sometimes not.  Catch a Mexican
    	wading across the Rio Grande, or a group of Cambodians stowed away
    	in the hold of a grain ship, or a flotilla of Hatians, and it takes
    	little guesswork.
    
>   Is the accusation alone sufficient to strip them of their rights?
    
    	Maybe all of the above legitimately ARE U.S. citizens or residents.
    	If so, they should be able to readily produce SOMETHING that 
    	indicates they are, or to at least raise enough reasonable doubt 
    	that the initial assumption was wrong.  Failing that, proceed
    	with deportation.  Deportation takes SOME time.  Give them a 
    	lawyer to contact relatives or fish up SOMETHING to raise doubt
    	of their presumed illegal status.  But if that fails while the
    	deportation process churns, then once the paperwork is done,
    	they're outta here!

.83>   An interesting point.  If you define "illegal" as one who has been
>   through the process and emerged as an illegal, then I would have to
>   agree that swift deportation is appropriate.  I am concerned with those
>   on the other end of the pipeline, i.e., persons out walking the street,
>   who may in fact be here illegally.
    
    	What's the difference?  Illegal is illegal.
   
>   Otherwise, we could shoot foreign tourists for
>   their cameras...
    
    	There you go again!

    Joe, I am dealing with Andy as I feel necessary to communicate with
    him.
    
    For you, let me say that you miss my point.  Due process is how persons
    in the US are treated when they are accused of a crime.  No person in
    the US is denied due process, by the 14th amendment, which is
    explicitly set up to include aliens, resident or otherwise, legal or
    illegal.  And I think you should think more carefully about my example
    of shooting tourists.  If illegals are not protected by the
    Constitution, under which law would I be prosecuted if I shot one?
    Less dramatically, if I accused you of being an illegal, why couldn't
    the police simply jail you on the spot?  After all, you're an illegal,
    right?  You have no rights.

    Anent .84: Andy, the US justice system is not set up so that those
    convicted are "probably" guilty, but guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
    
    Let's say you're suspected of being an illegal alien.  Are you saying
    that "due process" consists of you having to produce your green card?
    What if the authority believes your card was a forgery?  Can you be
    deported on the spot?  Do you have recourse?
    
    You also say you once had a green card.  That's interesting!  Let's say
    you were accused of a crime.  As an alien, do you have the right to an
    attorney?

.88>    Joe, I am dealing with Andy as I feel necessary to communicate with
>    him.
    
    	You probably can't walk and chew gum at the same time either.
    
>    For you, let me say that you miss my point. 
    
    	We'll come back to this.
    
>    No person in
>    the US is denied due process, by the 14th amendment, which is
>    explicitly set up to include aliens, resident or otherwise, legal or
>    illegal.  
    
    	You DECLARE that illegal aliens are covered.  That is the
    	argument here.  I think they should not be, and you have 
    	not provided a convincing argument why they should be other
    	than your declaration, and your silly example of shooting
    	them.
    
>    And I think you should think more carefully about my example
>    of shooting tourists.  If illegals are not protected by the
>    Constitution, under which law would I be prosecuted if I shot one?
    
    	Murder.  More generally, under "laws" of human decency and
    	respect for life.
    
>    Less dramatically, if I accused you of being an illegal, why couldn't
>    the police simply jail you on the spot?  After all, you're an illegal,
>    right?  You have no rights.
    
    	Ah, yes.  Now we come back to:
    
    >    For you, let me say that you miss my point.  
    
    	Go ahead.  Accuse me.  I've got enough proof in my possession
    	-- or, at the very least, a phone call away -- to sufficiently
    	raise doubt (if not prove outright) that the accusation is false, 
    	and thereby win me the full protection of the due process that you 
    	so cavalierly want to give away to those who do not merit it,
    	thereby diluting the value of what we as LEGAL residents have.
    
.89>    Let's say you're suspected of being an illegal alien.  Are you saying
>    that "due process" consists of you having to produce your green card?
    
    	That's all it takes.  Or some other ID.  At that point you have
    	demonstrated sufficient proof that you are entitled to the right to 
    	full protection of the constitution.
    
>    What if the authority believes your card was a forgery?  Can you be
>    deported on the spot?  Do you have recourse?
    
    	Not the way I see it.  Once you've produced something to raise
    	doubt that the accusation is false, you are entitled to full
    	protection.  Now you can have your protracted legal fiasco
    	that you are currently advocating for ANY suspected illegal.
    
>    You also say you once had a green card.  That's interesting!  Let's say
>    you were accused of a crime.  As an alien, do you have the right to an
>    attorney?
    
    	Still unable to differentiate between legal and illegal, I see.

    Joe, why don't you let Andy speak for himself?  And knock off the
    insults.  You make yourself look bad.
    
    As for you, my declaration is a statement of fact.  Illegals *are*
    covered, and I furthermore think they should be.  Why?  I have already
    given you one example, but let's try another.  Let's say Andy, as a
    green-card alien, is arrested for a crime.  Does he have the right to 
    an attorney?

    
    
    What are the circumstances of my arrest??? Since you're playing "what
    if", go ahead and finish it off...
    
     You still want to push your own version of things.. huh Steve? I
    remember telling you that there will always be the odd instance where
    someone will fall through the cracks.... That is not the norm and you
    know it!!! I had my green card... it was simple enough, as Joe said, to
    prove out who I was... 
    
      Why do you insist on pushing your bizarre situational ethics? Point
    of fact.... there was a second instance of bullets hitting the White
    House this past weekend... Do we prevent any and all peoples from
    getting no nearer than, say, 1 mile to the White House to prevent
    future instances? Do we, in Joe's example, take a person crossing the
    Rio Grande into custody and put him/her through the whole lengthy,
    expensive process of finding out if they're a citizen or in the country
    legally/illegally?
    
      You still haven't answered my question a few back where I asked how
    different was the due process procedure 20 or so years ago? Was it any
    different? 

   Anent .92: Andy, it doesn't matter what you are arrested for.
   Do you think otherwise?
   
   If you, as a green-card alien, were arrested, do you think you would or
   should have the right to an attorney?
   
   I think you should answer my questions before posing your own, but I
   will indulge you on this one:
   
   >> You still haven't answered my question a few back where I asked how
   >> different was the due process procedure 20 or so years ago? Was it
   >> any different?
   
   I don't think due process has changed in the last 20 years.  I don't
   believe it has changed since the Miranda decision and the decision that
   indigent defendents had the right to a public defender, which both
   happened (I think) more than twenty years ago.
   
   The root of due process has not changed since the eighteenth century,
   when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
   
   I would also point out, though I'm getting ahead of our discussion, that
   the set of people to whom due process applies changed in 1982.

    
    Strawman.  Of course a green card alien has the right to an attorney.
    
    Question back : Border guard catches paperless Mexican attempting to
    climb over fence into USA.  Does the apprehended person have the
    right to an attorney ?
    
      bb

   Not at all a strawman, but the entire point of my conversation!
   I don't have a green card; does that make me an illegal alien?
   And before you reply "Of course not!", ask yourself -- *how do you know
   my status*?
   
   As for your question, you know what I think?  As you word it, if the
   guard catches someone coming in, I think they can be sent back.
   Once they've got two feet inbounds, though, or if they claim they are
   Cheech Marin, it's the same situation as someone accused of speeding --
   *yes*, they have the right to full due process, if they are savvy enough
   to demand it.
   
   That's the way I think it is, and that's the way I feel it should be.

    
    Why do you want ANOTHER million lawyers, Steve Jong ?  We already
    lead the league, to our regret.  I can understand Georgie, who gets
    his jollies in between legalisms, but what's your excuse ?  In a
    country that can't get justice in small matters because it costs
    too much, why do we need the full court artillery in this case ?
    No, I don't think the apprehended have any rights except to show
    by some means they are legally here.
    
    As for you or me, we can easily show this.  Do you have a driver's
    license ?  Birth certicate ?  Employer ?  Social Security card ?
    
    You cry about human rights.  What about the rights of taxpayers ?
    
      bb

   Illegals often have a drivers' license, birth certificate, employer, and
   SS card, too, except they're forgeries.  I have all those things; if
   someone accused me of being an illegal, would due process apply to me? 
   Yes. But not because I'm actually a native-born citizen -- because of
   due process!
   
   I certainly do not want another million lawyers; we clearly have too
   many as it is.  But the liberties of the least of us are as important as
   the liberties of the rest of us.  And I recognize and agree with the
   concept that visitors to the United States -- even unwelcome ones --
   are afforded most of the rights of citizens, including all of due
   process.

.91>    Let's say Andy, as a
>    green-card alien, is arrested for a crime.  Does he have the right to 
>    an attorney?
    
    	Why do you insist on this ridiculous example?  OF COURSE HE DOES!
    	THAT'S WHAT GETTING THE GREEN CARD IS ALL ABOUT!  
    
    	You still need to work on the difference between illegal and legal
    	before we can go on.
    
    
.95>   Not at all a strawman, but the entire point of my conversation!
    
    	And the main reason why your end of the conversation is worthless.

    	re forgeries:
    
    	Still, it is enough to give initial reasonable doubt about the
    	accusations.  In time the forgeries will be discovered, and
    	deportation can begin.
    
    	I'd rather see documentation become less-reproducible than see
    	a whole industry flourish to inhibit justice.  Yes, that's the
    	way I see it.  Abusing the legal system to hide the truth is
    	inhibiting justice, not serving/fostering it.

 Snarfasition 187

   Joe, Andy stands before you, accused of being an illegal alien.
   My question is: does he have the right to legal representation as part
   of the due process of determining his status?
   
   Your answer: If he's a legal alien, yes; if not, not.  
   
   Great!  So tell me: How do you know if he's a legal alien before you 
   make the determination that he's a legal alien?

    
    Steve,
    
     Let's use the scenario you proposed just a few back.  US Bored Guard
    sees man scaling border fence from Mexico... Video tapes the event as
    it happens...
    
     Your take is while he's on the fence, he's fair game, but as soon as
    both feet land in the good ole' US of A, he's afforded all sorts of
    rights...
    
    >Joe, Andy stands before you, accused of being an illegal alien.
    
    Since you're concocting fictitious situations here, please explain a
    probable cause for me being accused of being an illegal alien. Pick a
    reasonable scenario...
    

   Anent .102: Andy, yes, that is what I said.  Once an illegal has both
   feet inbounds, as it were, it takes due process to get him out.
   I don't know if that's literally how it's handled, but I said it, so
   I'll stand on it.
   
   As for my scenario. why should I concoct a probable cause?
   We're discussing Prop 187 here.  No probable cause is required.
   
   Let's say I accuse you of being an illegal alien; your papers are
   forgeries, I say.  Do you have the right to an attorney?
   
   (And Joe wonders why I'm picking on you!  This is the fourth time I've
   asked you this simple question...)

    I would say that I have the right to a lawyer because I`m innocent
    until proven guilty and it is up to the state/government to prove my
    guilt.
    
    JMO

    
    
    Keep asking those "simple" but stupid and inane questions and I'll keep
    ignoring them...
    
    What is the probable cause for an officer of the law to arrest me?????
    
     Your accusation? What is their probable cause in Calif.???
    
    
    Keep dancing Steve... all I'm doing is letting you lead...
    

   Anent .105: Andy, I'm sure you feel these questions are "inane," but
   unless you answer them, you'll never know where they lead.  Joe, for
   instance, is quite a bit farther along in the discussion; you're still
   stuck at the gate.
   
   Now -- under Prop 187 I see no probable cause requirement.
   Do you?  So in the context of this discussion, there is no requirement
   for me to show probable cause that you're an illegal.  Maybe I am
   suspicious of your accent, or your clothes, or your behavior.
   Thatever; it doesn't matter.
   
   Also, do you know that probable cause itself is part of due process?
   If you're an illegal, you have said, there is no due process; so if
   you're illegal, who needs probable cause to take you into custody?
   
   So: Do you have the right to an attorney?

    Steve:
    
    If an illegal commits a crime, he/she should be sent to an obscure 
    penal colony on a remote island...one that forces self sufficiency like
    devils Island.
    
    If an illegal is caught as an illegal, they need to be escorted back to
    their home country...unless it is political asylum of course!
    
    -Jack

   Jack, I will agree with part of your second sentence: if someone is
   found to be an illegal, they can and should be sent packing.

	.101
       
>   Great!  So tell me: How do you know if he's a legal alien before you 
>   make the determination that he's a legal alien?
    
    	Show me some documentation, son!  Green card?  Drivers license?
    	Birth cert?  etc.
    
    	Nothing?  Assumed illegal.  You have the duration of the
    	deportation process to come up with *something* to cast
    	doubt upon the accusation.  If you come up with *something*
    	-- even marginal -- then GOTO "something" below.
    
    	Something?  (Even if suspected forgery) full legal protection.
    	It is the legal system's problem to prove that it's a forgery.
    	It is the USA's problem to make documents more forge-resistant.

    State's History Of Intolerance To Immigrants / 
    Happy `melting pot' not true, scholars say 


    Kenneth J. Garcia, Chronicle Staff Writer 

    History provides a harsh mirror for California's golden image as a
    melting pot,  a progressive place where the continent ends and the
    future begins. 

    And the myth has been further exposed by the passage of Proposition
    187. For  California, despite its multiethnic heritage, has always been
    intolerant to immigrants  during rough economic times. The same
    rugged-individualist traits that drew people to the  state in the first
    place, historians say, also made it inhospitable to latecomers eager to 
    stake their claims. 

    ``California has always been a xenophobic state,'' says Eric Schockman,
    a  political science professor at the University of Southern
    California. ``There's always  been this mythology of polyethnic
    harmony. But in fact, the state has a long history of  exclusionary
    acts against the Irish, the Chinese, the Japanese and Hispanics.'' 

    To be sure, the state's legislative history shows that floods of
    foreigners have  always provoked fears over economic and political
    security. But there is another  undeniable characteristic to the cycle
    of foreign immigration -- a few years later, as the  economic climate
    improves, the pendulum always swings back: 

    -- In the 1850s, the nativist members of the Know Nothing Party
    controlled state legislatures, elected governors and even rioted
    against Irish and German  immigrants. Five years later, the government
    sought immigrants to fight in the Civil War. 

    -- In the 1950s, under Operation Wetback, the federal government forced
    as many  as 1 million Mexicans -- most of them farmworkers -- to return
    home. But in  subsequent years, that program and others were dropped,
    as Congress allowed Cubans,  Vietnamese and Chinese to flee to the
    United States en masse during periods of civil  strife. 

    ``From an historian's point of view, tensions will always manifest
    themselves in  these ways (such as Proposition 187),'' says Bill Issel,
    professor of history and  urban studies at San Francisco State
    University. ``It's part of a long-term phenomenon in  American
    political history.'' 

    In the end, Proposition 187, which aims to deny most public services to
    illegal  immigrants in the state, will probably prove as ineffective a
    barrier as the others,  historians say. 

    Consider this: The U.S. Census Bureau says Latinos and nonwhites --
    many of them immigrants -- will outnumber Anglos in California within
    15 years. Within 25  years, Latinos alone, who now make up more than 30
    percent of the state's population,  will outnumber Anglos. And within
    45 years, nonwhites and Latinos will outnumber  Anglos in the state by
    a ratio of 2 to 1. 

    ``The mythology and the reality of California came together on Prop.
    187,'' says Schockman. ``But now that the mythology is cracked, people
    can start dealing  with the reality.'' -- -- -- Believers in the Golden
    Dream still can find solace. In San  Francisco, they can walk along
    Geary Boulevard or stop by a private school in the Sunset  District and
    find veritable postcards of multiculturalism. They can look at vast 
    stretches of the mighty Central Valley and see recent immigrants
    filling the ranks of the working  middle class. And they can see whole
    cities and towns populated and led by minorities. 

    Or they can simply visit Mission High School, which has been educating
    newly  arrived immigrants in San Francisco for more than 100 years. 

    As a child, Principal Lupe Arabolos immigrated to the United States
    from Mexico  City. Today, she heads a school that is among the most
    diverse in the country and has pioneered programs that help students
    assimilate quickly. 

    Of Mission's 1,300 students, 80 percent are foreign-born. The student
    body -- a rainbow of ethnic heritages -- represents 35 countries,
    including El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico, China, India,
    Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia,  Vietnam, Cambodia, Samoa and the
    Philippines. Arabolos estimates that as many as 22  languages and
    dialects are spoken by students at Mission. At any hour of the school
    day,  classes are being conducted in Chinese, Spanish and English. 

    ``It's like the United Nations here,'' Arabolos notes proudly. ``But
    it's a  tremendous challenge for us to help these students adjust to
    the language and cultural  differences.'' 

    It was not much different 100 years ago, except that the immigrants who
    filled  the school came from Ireland, Italy and Germany. Their pictures
    hang in the hallway, lined  up next to more current student body
    photos, offering visitors an illustrated history of  immigration in
    California. 

    Still, the pictures lack context. There is no hint of any exclusion
    acts aimed  at immigrants, which began with the Gold Rush and extended
    into the 1940s. There is no sense of  the fear among the ethnic groups
    singled out during the past century. 

    Explains Issel: ``Racism has always been used by those in power to
    limit  competition for jobs. And they do that by limiting the entry of
    newcomers.'' 

    During the Gold Rush, political leaders placed a tax on foreign miners.
    At one  point, there was a ``ponytail tax'' aimed at Chinese laborers.
    During the Depression, Los  Angeles began a voluntary deportation
    program that saw thousands of Mexicans return to  their native land.
    And last month, an overwhelmingly white electorate made its  feelings
    known on Proposition 187. 

    ``There have been dozens of neighborhoods that have been literally
    Latinoized  during the past five years, and I'm sure that scares a lot
    of people,'' says Fernando  Guerra, a political science and Chicano
    studies professor at Loyola Marymount University  in Los Angeles.
    ``It's polarized people. 

    ``But the bottom line,'' he adds, ``is that Latinos aren't going
    anywhere. And  there's nothing anyone can do about it.'' -- -- --
    Proposition 187's legacy is likely to  be seen in other states
    grappling with immigration issues. Across the nation,  conservative
    groups are hoping to capitalize on the measure's success by pushing for
    national  immigration reform. 

    ``The anger and resentment that people are feeling is something that we
    can ride  all the way to Washington,'' says Rick Oltman, head of the
    Marin Immigration Reform Association. ``We have a country that we want
    to defend. We don't want illegal immigrants coming here. It's really
    quite simple: In a world with 5 billion  people, any country that
    doesn't protect its borders is not going to survive.'' 

    Questions of survival may be at the heart of the nativist movement in 
    California. But Frank Fukuyama, a foreign policy and immigration
    specialist at the Rand Corporation in Washington, D. C., says he
    believes it stems largely from economics, not  immigrants. 

    ``I think that if the school system in Los Angeles were functioning
    well and it  hadn't broken down, people wouldn't be so upset,'' he
    says. ``But they point to the  influx of immigrants. Yet if you go to
    Texas, you don't find nearly the same degree of  anger there.''

    Fukuyama says he thinks anti- immigration forces will not necessarily
    face clear  sailing in Washington ``because lots of Republicans are
    divided over the issue. There  will be certain agreement to tighten up
    some immigration policies concerning the border.  But there's no sense
    of inevitability here.'' 

    Moreover, any broad-based immigration reforms might need to carry
    warning  labels, experts say. 

    ``Sadly, I think it portends some very serious racial conflict here and
    around  the nation,'' says Carlos Munoz Jr., an author and professor of
    ethnic studies at the  University of California at Berkeley. ``We're
    sitting on a powder keg right now. But I'm sure  other states will
    follow suit and come up with their own versions of Proposition  187.'' 

    Even so, many say they feel the resurgence of nativism threatens a
    tenet of  American society: the melting pot. The whole idea was
    generated during the massive influx  of central and southern Europeans
    into the United States around the turn of the  century -- a migration
    that threatened the dominance of northwestern Europeans already
    established here. 

    Says Issel: ``The question was, `What are we going to do with all these
    non-English-speaking people?' And the answer was, `We've got to find a
    way to  turn them into Americans by essentially placing them into a
    common pot. We'll call  that Americanization, and we'll do what we can
    to make sure they lose their  distinguishing social practices.' '' 

    Which of course, they did not. Indeed, the history of immigrants in the
    United  States shows that when a group comes under attack, members tend
    to withdraw into their  own culture even more, further emphasizing the
    distinctiveness that originally made  them a target. 

    The melting pot, now as ever, remains a myth. But the rainbow exists,
    vibrant  and recognizable. -- -- -- Language is the bridge to success
    at Mission High School.  To help non-English-speaking students
    assimilate as quickly as possible, they are  taught some core courses
    in Spanish and Chinese. 

    Spanish-speaking students may learn biology in their native tongue
    while they  take two or three English classes. The idea is to make sure
    they do not fall behind their  peers. 

    It is an idea that eluded earlier educators and is in direct opposition
    to many  of the nativist groups that prefer an English-only nation. But
    Principal Arabolos knows  firsthand the pitfalls of such a view. 

    When she first emigrated to Los Angeles, Arabolos was forbidden to
    speak Spanish  in her kindergarten class. To this day, she has a
    recurring nightmare in which she  is stuck in a classroom filled with
    students who have no mouths. 

    ``It hurts me to see some of the things I hear about immigrants, about
    how they  don't belong here,'' she says. ``How can they say that? I
    think I've contributed a lot  to this country. I have personally taught
    thousands of kids. How do you think some of  these people would feel if
    they went to a new country and were told they're not  welcome there or
    they couldn't speak their language?'' 

    These days, the students at Mission High School do not talk much about 
    Proposition 187. They say they are concerned about what effects it
    might have on their future,  but the debate has mostly subsided. 

    They do not have time anymore. They are too busy learning how to get on
    the  Internet. 
    
    [SF Chronicle, 28 Dec 94]

    	"Melting pot" image has melted California into a nice mess.

    Even though Prop 187 must run the court gamut in California, I've
    read that Florida, Texas and several other border states are looking
    at putting similar legislation on their ballots in the near future.
    
    If current laws are so ambiguous shouldn't we be talking to our
    congresscritters to get legislation passed that will stand up in
    court?
    
    One way or another, it's obvious the citizens in a lot of states
    are tired of "illegal" immigrants; what will it take to stem the
    tide?
    
    

    re .112
    
    What it takes is for agribusiness not hiring illegals, corporations not
    hiring illegals, and enforcement of the laws around hiring immigrants. 
    As long as the economy in other countries is on the ropes, or the
    governments are oppressive in other places, and we turn a blind eye to
    those small businesses which hire illegals, there will continue to be a
    flood into this country.
    
    Prop 187 basically says, "come on in and do the cheap work for us, but
    don't get sick, or expect to educate your children."  (IMO)  It does
    nothing to those busineeses, private person or others who persist in
    hiring illegals.
    
    meg
    
    

    
    In BC's budget there is an increase in the border patrol on Mexico,
    paid for partly by a $3 toll at BOTH the Canadian and Mexican borders,
    although Canada is not a problem.  I think it's both ways.
    
    I understand the need for revenue, but I find it depressing that we
    have to nickle-and-dime the northern border just after NAFTA.
    
      bb

>    In BC's budget there is an increase in the border patrol on Mexico,

The things you learn here!  I didn't know British Columbia *had* a border
with Mexico.

    
    .114,
    
    Our Prime Minister is about to burst a vein over this fee.
    
    I dunno...I cross the border so infrequently that it would hardly
    affect me, but I can see it being a financial and administrative
    pain for a lot of people.
    
    Although, frankly, I think that if Canadians want to use American
    infrastructure for their personal or business needs, then maybe 
    they should be prepared to fork out a little cash to contribute.
    
    Of course, having said that, I'd also have to be in favour of 
    charging $4 CDN (given current exchange rates) for Americans 
    coming in to Canada.  :^)
    
    jc
    

    Could we bring overhead slides then?  
    
    Brian
    

    
    Brian, that reminds me...I have to go to the library tonight and
    did up a copy of the Customs Act for Muppet-man!
    

    After Much Ado On Immigration, GOP Backs Off 
    
    Marc Sandalow, Chronicle Washington Bureau 
    Washington 
    
    After Republicans won control of Congress and Californians
    overwhelmingly approved Proposition 187, analysts predicted a rush of
    new laws and get-tough rhetoric directed at illegal immigrants. 
    
    Conservative lawmakers who for years had been clamoring for a chance to
    air their anti-immigrant strategies suddenly took over committees, with
    a real chance to enact measures that had previously been discarded
    without a hearing. 
    
    But two months into the new Congress, what was forecast as the hottest
    issue of the 1990s has been completely overshadowed by GOP efforts to
    cut the size of government. 
    
    The House, where dozens of bills and a constitutional amendment have
    already been approved, has yet to take a vote on a single immigration
    bill -- and it will not until at least May. The Senate will conduct its
    first committee hearing on the topic only this week. 
    
    To be sure, there is immigration legislation slowly moving through
    Congress. And much of it still causes great distress to civil
    libertarians. But there are signs that Republicans, now that they are
    in power, are a little skittish about the political consequences of a
    hard line on immigration. 
    
    WARNINGS HEARD
    
    Many have apparently taken to heart the advice of former Bush
    administration cabinet secretaries Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett, who
    warned last fall that embracing an anti-immigrant platform could cost
    the party dearly in the future. 
    
    ``There has definitely been a re- examination of the issue,'' said
    David Kuo, deputy policy director at Empower America, the conservative
    Washington think tank founded by Kemp and Bennett. 
    
    A crackdown on immigration presents Republicans with several conflicts.
    Immigrants tend to embody the very entrepreneurial values that the GOP
    espouses.  And some strategists fear that even an attack limited to
    illegal immigrants would leave Republicans open to charges of
    intolerance and could cost them significant support among minorities. 
    
    Signs that the GOP has softened its immigration stance were evident in
    the first week of the new Congress, when House Speaker Newt Gingrich
    said his party would ``revisit'' its proposal to cut off welfare to
    legal immigrants. The GOP's Contract With America -- which outlines the
    top priorities of the 104th Congress -- did not contain any provisions
    relating to illegal immigration. 
    
    NO IMITATORS 
    
    Predictions that copycat Proposition 187 measures would spring up in
    Congress and in dozens of states have thus far been wrong. Governors of
    immigrant-rich states such as Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York have
    by and large shunned the concept. 
    
    And in subcommittee meetings where immigration has been discussed, the
    Republicans' rhetoric has lacked the ideological fervor that captivated
    -- or scared -- constituents last year. 
    
    ``You have to go carefully,'' cautioned Republican Senator Alan Simpson
    of Wyoming, a leading advocate of immigration control. The issue is
    ``filled with emotion, fear, guilt and racism. . . . There has to be a
    bipartisan approach.'' Simpson will act as chairman at a hearing on the
    issue before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. 
    
    Although the most extreme rhetoric of the anti-immigrant crowd has
    softened, Democrats have increasingly jumped on the immigration-control
    bandwagon and embraced more moderate measures. 
    
    There is agreement between the Clinton administration and Republican
    leaders in Congress that border patrols must be significantly boosted
    and that a national registry should be created to verify employees'
    legal status. 
    
    INCREASED PATROLS
    
    Immigration and Naturalization Commissioner Doris Meissner told
    Congress last week that the administration had increased the number of
    border patrols by 40 percent since 1993. 
    
    She also said the Clinton administration will soon announce several
    pilot programs to crack down on illegal workers, including a program
    in California that will link 200 businesses to a database that will
    instantly verify a potential worker's residency. 
    
    Although sharp disagreements on many immigration control measures
    remain, the two sides have apparently found enough common ground to
    satisfy their constituencies. 
    
    ``The winning coalition on immigration is going to be a centrist
    Democratic- Republican group,'' said Dan Stein, the executive director
    of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. 
    
    The major battle may come later in the year when Congress debates new
    limits on legal immigration. Some Republicans, such as Simpson, are
    pushing for strict limits on the number of foreigners allowed to
    immigrate to rejoin family members in the United States. 
    
    Of course, there are still liberal Democrats who refuse to yield to the
    GOP on illegal immigration. The split in the Democratic Party was
    evident at a recent immigration forum, where Representative Bill
    Richardson, D-N.M., a member of the Hispanic Caucus, said his intention
    ``is to kill'' whatever Republicans put forward on immigration. 
    
    The comment drew a pointed response from Senator Dianne Feinstein, who
    was seated on the same panel. The California Democrat called
    Richardson's statement ``just egregious,'' lecturing him on the extent
    of the fear that led Californians to support Proposition 187, which she
    opposed. 
    
    Feinstein said it was remarkable that a measure ``whose central core
    had teachers tattling'' could pass in the largest state in the union. 
    
    ``If that doesn't sound a bell to say that we need major reform in this
    country . . . I don't know what does,'' Feinstein said. 
    
    Published 3/13/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

    Opponents Try To Avoid Trial On Prop. 187 
    
    Los Angeles 
    
    Seizing on a decision by California officials not to submit regulations
    for implementing Proposition 187 to a federal judge, civil rights
    lawyers yesterday asked the judge to declare the illegal-immigration
    ballot measure unconstitutional without a trial. 
    
    The motions for summary judgment, tentatively scheduled to be heard by
    U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer in Los Angeles this month, come
    less than three weeks after attorneys representing Governor Pete Wilson
    and Attorney General Dan Lungren decided against filing their proposed
    regulations with Pfaelzer. 
    
    In previous court hearings, state attorneys had repeatedly asserted
    that forthcoming regulations would clear up any questions about the
    legality of the ballot measure, which won overwhelmingly approval from
    state voters last November. 
    
    A trial beginning no later than September 5 is scheduled before
    Pfaelzer, who late last year temporarily blocked most portions of the
    measure from taking effect. 
    
    In the motions filed yesterday, two civil rights groups contended that
    Proposition 187 is unconstitutional because it serves as a state
    government scheme for regulating immigration. 
    
    ``That's solely a function within the authority of the federal
    government,'' said Peter A. Schey of the Center for Human Rights &
    Constitutional Law in Los Angeles. 
    
    Printed 5/2/95 in San Francisco Chronicle