I see what you are saying Neil, your diagram is crystal clear. 

Basticar - that is the price on the web for solar panels installed to run our A/C units, not including the 
A/C units! (That pre-supposes you use existing high efficiency A/Cs, which we have. :) 

Yes, our whole home is electric, which actually makes a lot of sense down here in the deep dry south. 
Gas and Oil primarily saves money on hot water and heating.  We have little heating to do down here, 
but a lot of A/C! 

-Paul

The differences would be:

Sunlight     Mains
   |           |
   V           V
 Solar       Meter
   |           |
   | +---------+
   V V         V
   A/C       House

OR

Sunlight           Mains
   |                 ^
   V                 V
 Solar--(excess)-->Meter
   V                 V
   +--------+--------+
            V
   +--------+--------+
   V                 V
  A/C              House

Option 1: if there's not enough sunlight you also draw A/C power from the 
mains, and if there's too much sunlight then the extra is lost.

Option 2: with too much sunlight your meter runs backwards and you get a power 
credit.  With insufficient sunlight you get what you can from solar and 
supplement it with the mains (low mains draw).  And when there's no sunlight 
everything comes from the mains.

It looks like you are pricing fancy air conditioners that have their own solar 
panel system.  Our air conditioner is not special, just a regular old air 
conditioner that runs on electric but now our solar panels on the roof are  
providing the energy to run it and the rest of the house. 

We are still on the grid, so when we are gone all day at work, we are running 
up energy credits that we can then use in the evening when we get home and our 
solar panels aren't producing. It balances out quite nicely. 

Is your whole house electric?

Hey Basticar - 

Well, those A/C guys total in around $47K just for the A/C, and even at that, the A/C has to have 
plenty of backup power from the grid for night time and cloudy days. To power the rest of the house 
would not be much more I suppose. I don't know, but to run the 
washer/dryer/stove/oven/fridge/entertainment systems/computers would take a source able to handle 
rather high spikes I think. Like when Karen bakes a cake, or dries a load of clothes. 

 Assuming that would double the cost, that puts it around $94K, or just about 1/4 the value of my 
home. That sounds pretty darn steep! 

I am assuming you know of less expensive alternatives? :)

-Paul

Paul - that sounds just crazy.  Why would you get one of those that 'ONLY' run 
the air conditioner when you could go solar on your whole house (air 
conditioner included) for quite a bit less?  Not to mention you loose a 
considerable federal tax credit if you go that way?

. . . and just so you understand, the federal tax credit isn't one of those 
that goes against something and basically just disappears, it's actually added 
to your return!  We got about $8K added to our return that we used to pay 
down the Line of Equity we'd taken against our house to do it.

Then the interest rates have dropped so much, we refinanced and rolled the 
remaining $17K into our loan . . . the payments actually came out lower.  

Add to that the absense of the $200 electric bill and it became a big 
win/win for us . . . just saying ;)

Here's a pretty interesting story about how wind farms are helping to raise the
cost of producing pure hydro. There are extenuating circumstances of course, but
it does help to demonstrate how intertwined things are sometimes.

http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2010/jun/16/puds-cant-give-it-away/

ps. this is from my neck of the woods.

Basticar, thanks for the info!  My wife has been agonizing over our electric 
bill every month (I have long-since taken the approach of sticking my head in 
the sand just out of self-preservation).  Yes, I would really like to come 
over to see it if you wouldn't mind.  We can talk some shop too!  :-)

Please email me: viking at nethere dot com

i have been considering attaching a 12v car battery to an alternator that is 
powered by the existing windmill out on some property we use. the alternator 
with a normal circuit to make sure the battery does not overcharge, would be 
enough to keep us in light while we camp.

i know i talked about the birds, but this thing has been there for almost 
twenty years, so i'm certain that all but the most clumsy and stupid birds 
have been weened out by now. :)

-sarge

Teach me to google, I never even though of solar powered A/C big enough to do more than a room Bob, 
but you are right. They do exist. The ones I could find with a google search large enough to handle our 
house are all hybrid units though, making up the needed power difference from the grid, and powered 
in toto from the grid at night.

http://www.coolerado.com/solutions/

I also found this, which I think is a grand idea. 

http://www.solarac.com/

But at a whopping cost of about $47,000 to power our two A/C units. Again, with help from the 
grid where necessary. Eliminating our A/C bill entirely, it would take about 14 years to recoup the cost. 
Since the A/C's have to run at night, make that closer to 25 years.  (We have a five ton and an 8 ton unit.) 

Possible though! :) 

-Paul

PS ~ Forgot to mention we got a 20yr guarantee on the panels and 
installation.  From what we understand, solar panels will loose some of their 
effeciency in that time, somewhere around 20% tops, but otherwise they just go 
on ticking . . . & ticking.  He told us he's seen some hitting 50yrs that are 
still producing.   Heck! I suppose some of the originals have been around that 
long.

fyi:
http://www.akeena.com/

Whew! Apparently . . . today is bazaar user question day.  Wouldn't be so bad 
except they are coming from the VPs O...o

Anyhow, where were we here.
/notes that's a lot of ere's

So - hcedmondson and Viking - I'll try to answer your questions before I tire 
of typing ;)

On the payback; we figured 7 years based on our average electric bill of 
$200/month; even given that we've had a rate hike since then and are in 
for a lot more if things keep going down the same track we're on.

I'll use round numbers to give you an idea of our cost.  We looked into 
several contractors, had 3 come out and give us written estimates along with 
showing us their products.  We went with Akeena and yes I have some 
cards/coupons that will give you a $500 credit (and me too hehehe), if you 
do decide to 'go solar'

We picked them because we liked their product.  They have redesigned the Solar 
Panel so that all the wiring is now internal, no racks or cables involved!  
The panels basically fit together like legos, except there is a screw involved 
that they rachet down with an big allen wrench, all smooth and contained.  We 
decided that they would last a lot longer that way and also, it looks so much 
kewler ;)

In San Diego you need a south facing roof and we have ours completely covered 
with the panels.  The entire cost came to 30K, but they took the State rebate 
right off the top, so out of pocket was actually only 22K.  Then we got the 
Federal tax credit back which came in at a bit over 7K, so bottom line, our 
total out of pocket is close to $17K

The system is hooked into our SDG&E meter and when we are producing more than 
we are consuming, yes . . . I've seen our meter spin backwards :)  We get 
credited the same rate as we pay, for those times we are not producing for 
whatever reason.  There's so much more, but I am REALLY glad we did it and 
took no time at all getting use to a zero electric bill.

To consider, we have a tiered pricing for electric here.  Not sure if it's 
that way elsewhere, but there's like 4 tiers, each with it's own price.  So 
basically you just want to eliminate the last 2 tiers of your bill because the 
1st 2 (which everyone uses up) are so low, it's just not cost effective to use 
Solar instead . . . but by tier 3 and especially tier 4, you are getting 
ripped off!  We got rid of those and most of the 2nd too :)

Viking, why don't you come on over and see the setup, it's pretty slick . . . 
maybe do a BBQ or something.

I always thought that A/C with solar cells was a no-brainer.  If it's hot, 
then there's usually plenty of sunlight, so it just makes sense.  (ok except 
when there's pending thunderstorms).  Though you probably don't want the solar 
panel attached to the A/C unit, since you tend to put the unit itself on the 
shady side of the home.

It's like having swimming pool using solar heating.

notwithstanding the fact that if you put a shade there, a creature that is 
could be damaged during "global warming" might have an opportunity to survive 
in that shade, plus the panels and support structures themselves become 
housing for various spiders and other insects and also act to collect dew that 
these poor creatures could drink from.

of course, up until about 60 days ago, people were impressed by the ever 
growing sea habitats that form around off-shore drilling rigs. :\

-sarge

Paul,

I'm seeing commercials on TV for new A/C units from traditional brands that now
come with solar cells to power them. Not sure if this is a 100% power solution
or a partial/offset option, but nonetheless, this may be the A/C solution in
your context.

Commercial solar is not without it's own environmental issues; the minute
someone decides to block the sun from some piece of ground, regardless of how
godforsaken that piece might be, here come the environmentalist and their
lawyers. There's sure to be some rare, endangered rodent living there.

Residential solar is mostly ok since it's put on roofs that already block the sun.

i agree that solar is the way to go.

the windmill thing is an eye catcher and you can see it from a long distance, 
so you know when it is working, but even though it can work at night, there 
has got to be some damage to the migratory bird routes.

also, i imagine the vibrations of the "Whooshing" blades has got to transfer 
to the ground which can cause subterrainean life to scurry away. much like one 
of those whirly-gig things that chase gophers and other rodents from your yard.

-sarge

Boy, you hit the nail on the head there Bob!  

The only problem with local solar farms involves the energy density
you need for highly populated areas, as well as the energy needs for 
environmental maintenance. (i.e. A/C and Heating.) 

A/C is our single biggest expense here where I am in Texas. We run 
the cursed things from *February* into December. Even using highly 
efficient devices, this is kind of crazy. There are years where we do 
not ever turn on the heat, as the house stays comfortably warm
even when the outside temperature dips into the low 30's at night.
(It's all the heat insulation!) 

Anyway, the point is, there are about 400 homes in my immediate 
area, most of which run two or more A/C units. That's an enormous 
amount of power for a solar farm to provide. All the other power 
usages combined, cooking, lights, entertainment, home offices, etc. 
are a small fraction of the A/C power requirements. 

While it is true we also have a lot of land to put solar on, 
and a lot of sunlight to run them, we still need high density
 power sources, coal, oil, or nuclear to power the local grid. 

Indeed, a small shipboard reactor of the kind used in a U.S.
sub could power the entire neighborhood. A thorium based 
reactor designed along those lines can do it cheaply and safely.
And the technology scales up. 

Okay, we could live here without A/C - after all, people 
did for hundreds of years. However, it would be very unpleasant. 
We as a society, will spend money to be comfortable.  I suppose
some of the "green" people feel that it is rather terrible to feel 
that my A/C is important enough to warrant the use of fossil fuel 
technology, at least for now.  I obviously disagree. :) 

This line about how we only have limited resources and 
must conserve them or we will run out is pretty much just 
that - a line used to hook a lot of folks. 100 years ago, the idea 
of drilling for oil a mile or more beneath the surface of the 
sea was considered sheerest fantasy, yet we do so today. 

And it isn't even newsworthy unless there is a catastrophic accident.

Tomorrow we will tap resources dismissed as fantasy today.

We need to be concentrating on high density power from MHD and other sources that expand our 
energy usage, and therefor our wealth.

Neil, the neighbor's tree is a big issue for some, as is cloudy days for others.
I think what needs to be done is, instead of installing these huge, expensive
windmills, we instead create smaller fields of solar cells that power just a
neighborhood. Perhaps plant low-growing fruit or veggie plants between the rows
of solar cells and route the power to the local community. Those who want to
install addition cells on their own property, fine. But that way we won't have
contractors screwing people over to add a $5000 product to their new home
for only $75,000 "because the government gives you a tax break". I find it
amusing that people go for "tax breaks" like bugs to a sodium vapor street
light. (As I recently witnessed in the hugely over-priced "Duty Free" stores in
the airports, where without tax the alcohol actual costs more than buying it from
CostCo or your local grocery store.)

I think solar will prevail. I think this oil spill will cause a lot of people to
put their money where the mouth is, as Carol suggested. The windmill thing will
become a fad once people realize they're not helping. 

Right now solar cells are a ripoff, but as soon as the Chinese figure out that
we're willing to pay for them, they'll license the German technology and make
them for 5 cents each and sell them to use for $20/each. American industry
is far too short-sighted to do anything like that today, so we'll have to wait
for the Chinese.

Basticar, that is awesome!  I've been seeing some information about it and 
wondering if it was worth it financially.  Did you take advantage of some sort 
of credit or tax break or something or did you just have to pay for it all?  
What are the details?  I live in SD too with a big sunny roof and our electric 
bill is totally out of control!

Maybe the company who did the work for you would give you some sort of 
referral fee if you want to share that info with me (I assume you were happy 
with them).  You can email me at viking at nethere dot com.

Basticar, what is the break even point in years on your solar?

I think if I saw my meter spinning backwards and my bill going negative I'd be
laughing so hard I'd not get any work done, lol.

We did consider solar panels back when I lived in CA, but the neighbours tree 
blocked sunlight to the roof for about 40% of the daylight hours.  Currently 
I'm not sure about the safety of installing them on our home here in MI, while 
the roof faces the predominant sun direction - I'm not sure the roof will 
support the weight if there is a goodly snow fall.

We had solar panels installed on our roof a few months ago and our electric 
bill that was around $300/month after the last rate hike, is a credit in 
the summer and the worst it was this winter was $5.  Yes, that's 
5dollars :)

Soooooo I actually put my money where my mouth was . . . errrrr, that sounds 
awful LOL, anyhow; what I meant was that I walked the walk ;)

That makes sense, Neil.  Sorry for assuming you meant a closed-loop system in
terms of energy flow.  It is a good idea, though, as it reduces the need for
more peak generating capacity.  I'll go back to lurking...

Actually I meant closed hydro-electric system in as much as:
The reservoirs are below ground (both upper and lower), and transfer of water 
is through pipes.  You thus don't lose any water to evaporation and real 
estate use is minimal.  Once you have the underground reservoirs, you can 
build anything you like on top of them, or restore them to a natural 
preserve.  All you need is a steep hill/mountain that you can build a hydro 
station into the bottom of, along with the transformers and power lines.

There are so many natural clean energy sources to consider, I believe that the 
answer may be a combination of 3 or 4 solutions and not just one.  I don’t like 
being locked into 1 solution and then having that rug pulled out from under us.

Wind is still a possibility. A research company in New Hampshire recently 
patented its bladeless wind turbine, which is based on a patent issued to 
Nikola Tesla in 1913.

Anyone heard about China’s combustible ice?

Fuel cell technology has been “under development” for many years, but Bloom 
Energy seems to have a grip on this technology.  Sounds neat!

My favorite possible fuel source is algae.  This is something else that’s been 
kicked around for a few years, and now I here someone has an inflatable airship 
that runs on algae!  Algae is easily and quickly grown pretty much anywhere 
(even in desert climates where nothing else very useful would grow) and has no 
other practical uses.  My understanding is that it is a clean energy source 
also.

I wonder what happened to the guy who said he could take “garbage” and convert 
it to fuel.  I remember when I first heard this “story” a few years ago that it 
sounded like a wonderful idea because our dumps are also filling up and some 
dump sites are full.  I guess the amount of energy required to create the fuel 
was to high.

Then there is the mighty Gulf Stream that rushes by at nearly 8.5 billion 
gallons per second. Scientists believe it represents a possibility for a new, 
plentiful and uninterrupted source of clean energy.  Then again, man has done 
enough damage to Earth’s oceans and perhaps we should leave this one alone.

And yet, even the "closed hydro-power system" in the UK isn't closed.  As Neil
noted, at night "the hydro-power station draws power from the grid and pumps
water from the lower reservoir to the upper ready for next day."  So drawing
from the grid they're again using hydrocarbon and/or nuclear power plants to
charge the reservoir "battery", just like we do with our electric vehicles. 
It's better than the alternative, since it reduces the need for generating
capacity, but it's not a closed system or the perfect answer.  Time to start
mining dilithium crystals, I guess!

Migratory birds may be protected but they are not necessarily the ones that get
whacked by windmills, the local birds get hammered too, from time to time.

I live near windmill county, they are aware of the problem, presently studying
it, probably to death. Here's a slightly dated link to a story about an Eagle
buying the wind farm:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009237912_apwawindturbineeagle1stldwritethru.html

I like the concept of stored hydro neilrh mentioned. It is somewhat land-greedy
and only fits certain topographies but, everything is a compromise. The only
thing that might beat stored hydro for efficiency is natural hydro.

The Justice Department should be prosecuting companies who operate wind-powered 
turbines that are responsible for killing birds.  Birds are protected by the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act that has been in place for about 100 years.  

This is no different than ExxonMobil and other energy companies who were 
responsible for the death of birds from contact with either crude oil or 
electrocuted by poorly designed power lines.  Windmills are no different and 
just because it's a different kind of energy doesn't mean these firms are NOT 
energy companies.

I'm not a fan of windmills, although they look good on paper, I'm guessing (and
yes it is guessing) that they will disrupt bird flight/migration patterns and
lead to the reduction of several species. I'm also guessing that the big bucks
will be in taking down these giant windmills once all various birds start to
vanish and someone realizes it.

Couple or three questions: 


Neil: You emphasized "natural" power sources. I had to stop for a second and wonder, what kind of "un-
natural" power source is there? I surely cannot think of one. 

(2) Burning oil and coal for power is, at best a temporary solution. How long should we depend upon 
that temporary solution? 10 years? 20? 50?  The answer matters in terms of what we do. 

(3) Solar power is not only abundant above the atmosphere, but clean and non-polluting as well. Why 
not an X-Prize of say, $50 billion tax free dollars for the first company to build a Solar PowerSat, 
and operate it for one year?

I'm not suggesting that there are no alternatives, merely that you're fighting 
2 battles:
- today we demand energy on demand, if we want hot water for a shower or a cup 
of tea, we expect it to be there.  The power production needs to have a high 
percentage of _reliable_ production methods.
- the alternative power supplies are under attack from the same folks who want 
fossil fuel energy retired.

Also changing how our transit methods are powered isn't cleaning up the 
pollution either.  Electric cars are "clean", but unless your recharging 
station is wind or solar powered all you've done is relocate the pollution 
from your exhaust pipe to the nearest coal fired power station - qed you're 
still polluting.  Even hydrogen powered fuel cells require the "creation" of 
hydrogen, usually by passing electricity through water, which once again 
results in pollution from your local coal fired power station.  Without 
addressing the source of the electricity supply all of the "clean" energy 
solutions are tainted by that production method.

Now there is a closed hydro-power system in part of the UK.  As demand 
increases above general use, the taps from the upper reservoir are opened and 
the hydro-power station adds power to the national grid.  When demand drops to 
average the system is shut down.  Then at night, the system is reversed and 
the hydro-power station draws power from the grid and pumps water from the 
lower reservoir to the upper ready for next day.  Effectively they have built 
a gravity powered battery to cover peak demand.  And is a green method to 
alleviate the inherent problem of fossil fuel power supply, which takes days 
to bring on-line or shut down and is not easily ramped up or down to take into 
account those peak demands - in effect without this system the UK would have 
to run the system at peak demand levels and waste a lot of unused energy.

Neil, the problem isn't that there are no alternatives today, the problem is
that we as a society try to keep it from changing. First we had electric cars,
then since gasoline was so abundant and cheap we switched to internal combustion
machines. Today gasoline is still very abundant, probably several hundred years
worth even at today's "burn rates". But that doesn't mean moving a substance
that is isolated deep in the Earth, into the air and water supply is valid. Sure
it is possible, we do it every second of everyday, but it isn't valid.

What's needed is something new, completely different; whether its some sci-fi
esq energy source or something sitting right in front of our noses. I can't
believe that burning tons of dead lifeforms is the only kind of fuel there is.

Ralphamiller sorry you were/are offended by words. I'm not.
I would pull the level on Cheney and require it for public viewing.
He's the one that sent the letter, as VP, to the EPA or that sub-sub-agency
advocating NOT requiring the $500,000 shut off valve on this oil rig. Used
his place in office to, once again help line the pockets of his former employers
and his buddies. No different then Saddam if you ask me. But if you frequent
this forum, this is old news.

Chicago has plenty of nuclear power, but Illinois produces a lot of coal. But
coal jobs are mostly "make work" and not really productive work. We already have
enough coal stockpiles for 300 years--even if we never mine another bucket of coal.

I could be wrong, but the only non-carbon fuel we seem to have available to us 
is the radioactive stuff.  Every other form of electric power production 
involves an energy conversion - wind, solar or water.  Unfortunately for each 
of these we have conflicting environmentalists seeing who can piss the 
highest.  Can't use wind because birds fly into the turbines and get nicely 
sliced and diced, or it spoils the view from the back porch.  Can't build a 
hydro-electric plant because some rare species of slug will lose it's 
habitat.  So which is worse?  Chuck out so much polution from coal plants that 
the birds die, or have them risk getting chopped up?

The only truely reliable natural power supply comes from tidal or other hydro-
electric system - though even then, if it don't rain then the rivers dry up 
and the hydro power is reduced.  With wind and solar you're stuck with what 
the weather is doing.  And the modern world relies on uninterrupted power - 
there'd be mass complaining if we couldn't access RPGworld.com because it 
wasn't windy enough in Chicago!!

Bob said - Why Bush is not in jail and Cheney not hanged in the  
public square are a mystery to me.

Strong words Bob. An somewhat offensive. In my opinion, most politicians are 
low-lifes. I don't think the two mentioned above were any better or worse than 
average.

The only reason OIL is priced at XX dollars is because:
1) If it were any higher, the U.S. wouldn't stand for it.
2) If it were much, much lower, control of the masses would be more difficult.

The use of OIL (and COAL) as fuel needs to end 20 years+ ago. If I were king of this dump, I'd mandate 
that all fuels be non-OIL/carbon based within 5 years. If you can't adapt, then die. I don't care, new is 
better. But keeping old alive "because we've always done it that way" is sort of like being controlled by the 
church of england--it just keeps some old white guys screwing over the rest of the humanity to keep the 
secrets and power.

Sarge said: "saddam and his sons uday and qusay 
were very bad people who did horrific things to their people and land. they 
were disliked by their royal cousins in the other Arab nations, which is how 
we got permission to take them down."

True, and if we substitute G.W. Bush for "Saddam" and make other corresponding substitutions, I would 
suggestion Bush did the same thing to the U.S.  Why Bush is not in jail and Cheney not hanged in the  
public square are a mystery to me.

Well, that is sort of what I thought but I still wanted to make it more clear 
what I mean by both keeping our nose out of countries business and at the same 
time trying to help them.

I get it.  I was just trying to yank your chain.  Hope you didn't take it the 
wrong way. ;)

BrianR
I understand...when we decided Saddam should no longer be the leader in that 
country we invaded that country, that's meddling.  We we make threats and we 
invade other countries with a REAL reason then that is meddling.  Just because 
we disagree with foreign cultures and polices doesn't give us the right.  

To "offer" our assistance and aid is NOT the same.

If your neighbor is having problems is it wrong to offer them any type of 
assistance that is within your means?  If your neighbor is a strict parent and 
you hear that he has spanked his child as punishment (and you are one of those 
parents who believe spanking is "wrong") is it wrong for you to go break down 
his door and beat his head in?  

This is what I am talking about...keep our nose out of their business but let 
them know that we are here to help in any way possible.  After all, Mexico's 
president (their current and previous) have been wanting to work with our 
leaders for years to try to improve relationships between us and them and to 
try to help the Mexican people.  How long has it been since one of our 
presidents wanted to do something to honestly help us?

>> Many other countries our the victim and they hate us because we meddle in 
their affairs...   
And a lot of this is our fault for not... trying to help our neighbors solve 
economic problems.

I found it interesting that on the one hand you imply that we shouldn't 
meddle, but on the other hand we don't meddle enough.  Just sayin...

All this bit about immigration seems a bit overblown to me, doesn't it to you? 

I'll all for having open borders, but - unless you are a citizen of the U.S., you do not get social benefits, 
welfare, free schooling, government backed loans, "free" emergency health care, the right to vote in 
anything. Or any other rights reserved for citizens.

You do get to pay income, sales, property, and all the other taxes we pay, plus whatever the local school 
district charges you to let your kinds attend school. You do get held accountable for being law abiding, 
the same as any citizen, and you do get to live anywhere you can afford. 

That's fine with me - indeed, it sounds like the deal Mexico provides to U.S. citizens. 

-Paul

<I have a REAL problem when someone says the victim "caused" the aggressor to 
hurt, hate...whatever the victim> Many other countries our the victim and they 
hate us because we meddle in their affairs instead of taking care of our own 
problems. We think that we have borders when it comes to immigration and no 
borders when it comes to making others think and act like we do and trying to 
police the entire world.  

If you think we are the victim then I challenge you to think again. There are 
often 2 victims when it comes to illegal immigration. Put yourself in their 
shoes and imagine not being able to find work, not being able to feed your 
family (which is probably more kids than we have) and being desperate enough to 
leave your home and travel to a foreign country to find work. The decision to 
come here is often after they have looked into coming here legally and have 
found out that they cannot afford the immigration fees and are even told in 
many cases that they can bypass this step since the US doesn't strictly enforce 
immigration laws, they are told that even if they are caught that nothing will 
happen...they will just be deported.  

So imagine leaving your family, home, and country behind and going to antoher 
country to try to find work. You finally do find a job and even though it's a 
job that no native in that country wanted you are glad to do it. Even though 
you are being paid half of what you should be paid you don't complaign because 
it is enough to feed your family.  

Then imagine that the people in this other country, without knowing ANYTHING 
about you or your status, treat you so horrible that it's obvious that they 
hate you. You don't want to be in their country, you miss your homeland, but 
you REALLY need the encome. Even though you don't feel welcome you keep on 
working hard because you know that your family needs the money. You start to 
hear rumors that the country you've always heard calling itself the "land of 
opportunity" is going to start enforcing it's immigration laws and you start to 
feel like you might loose the job you have now had for many years.  It's 
obvious you aren't here to hurt anyone, yet everyone wants to see you gone.

So don't you think you would feel like a victim, don't you think you would take 
it personal (because it is very personal from their perspective), don't you 
think you would be angry at the people who are trying to take away your only 
source of encome...after all, nobody else seemed to want the job when you took 
it several years ago. I know I would feel like the victim.  

And a lot of this is our fault for not enforcing our laws, for not following 
through with the penalties and punishments for MANY years.  And for not doing a 
better job of communciating, listening, and trying to help our neighbors solve 
economic problems. It's also our fault for sending Mfg jobs to Mexico many 
years ago (to take advantage of them) and then remove many of these jobs when 
our companies move to another country like China.  We helped to create some of 
the economic problems that families in Mexico are facing and we don't seem to 
be sympathetic at all.  So yes they too are a victim, even more so than we are.

<This 'look the other way' stance that's been taken on illegal immigration must 
end> I agree 100%.  But I also feel that because we've often looked the other 
way and because we treat Mexican immigrants differently than those from other 
countries (Jamaica for example) I feel that the government "should" offer an 
explanation to other governments around the world as to why we are now 
enforcing immigration laws.  For immigrants who are already here, we should 
remind them of what happens to someone who enters their homeland illegally and 
they should be told that our government is goning to punish it's own people 
more harshly than them (and we should fine these companies who have hired 
undocumented workers a lot more than we have in the past).  

I have a REAL problem when someone says the victim "caused" the aggressor to 
hurt, hate . . . whatever the victim.  I refuse to take the blame for someone 
else's actions just as I take full responsiblity for my own. 

This 'look the other way' stance that's been taken on illegal immigration must 
end, for so many reasons; none of which has anything to do with race. 

My stance on immigration was best summed up 100 years ago, as follows:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in 
good faith, becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be 
treated on an exact equality with everyone else for it is an outrage to 
discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. 
But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, 
and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man 
who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. 
We have room for but one flag, the American flag.  We have room for but one 
language here, and that is the English language and we have room for but one 
sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

— Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

Well, I guess I am speaking in terms of Mexico and the way they make me feel 
welcome when I go down there.  I am sure that many other countries are 
different, but most of their attitude towards Americans is our fault.

"I want them to feel as welcome in my country as they would make me feel in 
their own country."

You were doing great up till then, lol, careful what you wish for.

That's great Edman!!!

The way it "should" be explained to the Mexican communities is that this 
country is really not that much different than their country regarding 
immigration (except their country would lock us up for much longer if we 
entered their country illegally).  I think we've tried to look the other way at 
times in the past, but times have changed and there are far too many people 
here illegally...plus our current economy and unemployment situations almost 
demand that we look at the immigration issue as at least a part of a solution.

The sudden change in attitude is what seems to be upsetting people (even those 
here legally) the most.  I want to see Mexicans, Indians, and many other 
foreigners come here...that is what makes our country so great.  But I want 
them to come here legally and I want them to contribute to this countries 
successes and not be the cause of any of our failures.  I want them to bring 
their cultures and share it with us, not be forced to hide their cultures from 
us. I want them to feel as welcome in my country as they would make me feel in 
their own country.

yes, i mean that those who would do us harm or who commit violent crimes or 
who transport or market illegal drugs, or legal ones, in an illegal fashion.

i dont support amnesty.  i support a reform plan that incorporates our mexican 
friends as well as those from other countries.

again, not everybody who comes here wants to be an american citizen..they want 
to earn a wage that they can send home to support their family and provide a 
better life for them.

pretty much the same thing i do, except that i was born in the u.s.a. and my 
wife just hits the debit card and bank account locally!!!! :)

-sarge

(Can I have that gas can over there.... Just a little more gas please... 
aaaahhhh yes... thank you)

Very good analogy!!!!!

This was written by a Mexican who is now a naturalized US Citizen, and I think 
it's a great perspective on the illegal immigration issue.
Here is the quote:

"If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland, or for an airline 
flight, and when you got to your assigned seat you found someone else was in 
that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket 
checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would properly be asked 
to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have 
bought and paid for that seat. The person in your seat would also be asked for 
a ticket, which they would not be able to produce. They would be called "gate 
crashers" and they would properly be removed.

Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. 
We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate 
crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at 
the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed 
us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the 
tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or 
not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!

In "section AZ", of "Stadium USA", we have had enough of the failures of 
Security. We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove 
those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many 
people in the other 49 "sections", and even many in our own "section" do not 
want tickets checked, or even to be asked to show their ticket! Even the head 
of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn 
to do.

My own ticket has been bought and paid for, so I am proudly going to show it 
when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers 
to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine 
anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of 
gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it, such as drug 
smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more 
illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new 
legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protestors such as 
Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not 
in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or 
other legal document) when asked, as I would do proudly, then you must be 
condoning those illegal activities."

Written by a US Citizen, Globe, Arizona.

I agree that the borders must remain "closed" as you put it, but we still have 
those "undocumented" people that are in fact "illegal" that have either managed 
to enter illegally or their papers have expired.  Either way, they are here 
illegally and are in fact "undesirable" according to our laws (including 
Arizona's new laws which echo federal laws).  

I think you meant people who might do us harm or bring some disease into this 
country when you used the term "undesirables".  But our immigration laws pretty 
much say that anyone without proper paperwork are "undesirable".  I also want 
everyone to be here legally, I want to see changes that make that possible for 
everyone and not just those with money who can afford to go through the process.

Yes, we're all part of one single race...the human race.

Tfish:

of course the borders must remain closed, with specific entry/exit points. 
there is a reason for this, which is to keep undesirables out.

just because a person is undocumented, does not mean that they are an 
undesirable person.  there is no such thing as an "illegal person", only their 
status.

i refer to ethnic backgrounds because way, way, waaayyy before the Human 
Element commercials came out, i espoused my belief to my Soldiers and friends 
and family that there is only one freakin' race on this planet
...the Human Race...

as soon as people as a whole start to understand that regardless of whether 
you believe in God, nature or just plain luck, the earth does not belong to 
us, we only rent a piece of it for a few decades or so, to live here.

the resources should be used a commodities, i do believe strongly in a 
captialist society, and other goods such as gems, precious metals, etc should 
be traded for currency to other nations.

however, i do believe that the financially stronger nations, and those nations 
with great resources who receive monies for their goods should feel obligated 
to help their fellow human beings with food, clean water, decent housing, etc.

i hope to be one of the wealthy one day. i pay my dummy-tax when the lottery 
reaches 50 million.  i want the money not just for me and my family, but to 
use it to do some good in this world.

i dont need 10 million dollars to live on.  a couple of million to give my 
wife the things she needs and a few things she desires, a vehicle for my kids 
as long as they stay in school and a modest house when they graduate college.

the rest is going to come back to me as tax returns because i would give it 
all away.  wont even pretend to say, i'll start a business, because my busines 
will be traveling to locations and making sure my money is doing what i want 
it to do, not measuring cow flatulence.

-sarge

p.s. i'd probably go ahead and leave the army, too.  i love the life, but you 
know what, bullets and ieds dont discriminate against the wealthy. :)

Well that's similar to England, we didn't start a second language until we 
moved to middle school.  In that case the elected language was French (taught 
by an American teacher) - I think the selection was mostly because they're our 
closest neighbours, and partly because of the English penchant for going over 
there and kicking their butts every couple of hundred years :)

Later in high school we had the option to learn a 3rd language - either German 
or Spanish.

Right Neil...that is what I was trying to say about how our schools should be.  
But in this case I would like for the Spanish speaking students to be learning 
how to speak, read, and write in English.  I also think it's important for 
American students to learn a foreign language.  Of course my kids know Spanish 
and are continuing to learn more Spanish, but outside the classroom since they 
don't teach foreign languages in elementary schools.

That's how things work in Wales - if you taught your kid to speak Welsh, then 
you enroll them in the local Welsh only primary school, and if you taught your 
kid English then you enroll them in the English only primary school - if you 
taught them to speak both languages then you can pick which school you want to 
send them to.  What you don't do is enroll your English speaking kid in a 
Welsh language school!!  The segregation is language based and makes sense in 
that pupils are able to learn at the most efficient rate based on their 
primary language.

During primary school the Welsh speakers learn English as a second language.  
I'm not sure if the same is true for the English speakers - though you pretty 
much cannot get a job in rural Wales if you're not bi-lingual.  By the time 
you get to middle school most Welsh kids are proficient in both languages and 
there is lesser requirement to segregate by language.

Neil,
Right, the schools in India cater to the predominant local language plus 
English.

Sarge,
So should we do away with border patrols and allow anyone in?  After all, that 
too gives an "us and them" attitude".  Either Spanish speaking students need to 
learn English or our kids need to learn Spanish if they are going to be taught 
in the same classrooms.  If you are saying that our kids will be taught Spanish 
then I am okay with that (of course the Spanish speaking children would gain 
anything from this).  

What I am against is no curriculum or plan to bridge a language barrier in the 
classroom and allowing this to put out students behind academically.  

We had to deal with this problem a little this past school year.  My son's 
teacher allowed the class to get behind because she was having to spend too 
much time working with a child that is legally blind.  The same would be true 
if some of the students didn't speak English.  This is why the classes should 
be separate, so kids are completing their studies and not ending each grade 
several weeks behind where they should be.  

While I don't like the idea "segregation", I also don't like kids (American 
children or Mexican children) being "left behind" because of a language 
barrier.  Plus you have to find qualified teachers to teach the curriculum in 
Spanish.  CRCT, SAT, and other tests would have to be available in 
Spanish...are these available in Spanish?  

Mixing classrooms will hurt both.  If the children already speaks a lot of 
English then fine, but if there are some that don't know a certain level of 
English then they shouldn't be placed in an English speaking classroom until 
they reach a certain level. 

LOLOlolololoooo.... YOU BETCHA Sarge

8^)

and there always a needle with the thread. 

ain't that right Ed "the needler" Man?

-sarge

Ya know.... It's not the topic that is outta control.... it's this damn 
thread.... LOLOLOLOLOLOOLOolololooooo....

i cannot support segregation even in classrooms. it gives an "us and them" 
attitude which does nothing to form proper relations between peoples of 
different ethnic backgrounds.

i could agree with a spanish only class 1/2 the day and the second half 
dedicated to teaching english (or whatever country language) to minimize the 
interuption of learning, thereby not causing a student to be held back or 
promoted to the next grade based only on age and the lazy teachers who dont 
want to teach once they get tenure.

along with my south of the border medical and jobs program comes the english 
as a second language classes.

-sarge

My understanding is in India the school caters to the predominant local 
language.  So if you speak one of the minor dialects or a major dialect from a 
different region - you better make sure you are also fluent in the local major.

In Singapore even though it is much like America in that it is "smelting" pot 
of people (Mandrian, Japanese, Malay....)

The primary language is English

Neil,
Don't forget India...they start teaching their kids English early in school.  
Some schools there have two or three languages in the same school.  But this is 
for their citizens, we're not talking about "undocumented" kids attending these 
schools...I don't know if they have this same problem or not.

In countries that are bi-lingual, schools are typically segregated by language 
that courses are taught.  In Wales you go to either an English speaking school 
and maybe learn Welsh as a second language OR you go to a Welsh speaking 
school and learn English as a second language - yes some of my relatives did 
not learn English until they went to school.

In practically every other country in the world school classes are taught in 
the native language - with the odd exception of a bilingual country (Canada - 
French & English, Wales - Welsh & English).

If any of us emigrated to France, our kids would be expected to understand 
French at school, no provision would be made.  They would be expected, if 
needed, to take an external French for English speakers class.  Same with 
Mexico, classes at school are taught in Spanish, and all attendees are 
required to communicate in that language.

The US seems to be the exception, in that they are expected to make allowances 
for Spanish only kids at school - but if you come here from China, Sweden, or 
Iraq you better make sure your kids speak English, because there's no special 
treatment for them.

I guess that raises the question, should the US become officially bi-lingual?  
Providing schools that teach either all in English OR Spanish.  All govt forms 
should be in both English and Spanish.  And the ability to order a Burger King 
in South California in both English and Spanish (rather than just Spanish - my 
personal experience).

Sarge,
I see your point...however, if the child is "undocumented" then the taxpayers 
of this country should not have to fund this extra effort (Mexico isn't going 
to start up an English speaking class if you take your kids to Mexico 
illegally).  

If they were born here then, based on what I've seen, they already know 
English.  If they are "legal" then I agree.  However, they should have a 
special class for them and not mix classrooms with Spanish and English.  They 
should also try to have the minimum required students to have the class and not 
just 2 or 3.  And finally, learning to speak English must be a requirement 
along with their other studies.

TFish:

the bi-lingual schooling was to provide an education for those who have not 
mastered the english language. that part I DO AGREE WITH, because it at least 
gave the students the ability to take classes with people their own age.

i would be frustrated and probably drop out if i were a 13 year-old who had to 
take classes with 10 year-olds becuase i had to take a year or so to learn the 
language.

this produces drop-outs and not all of the drop-outs become leaders of 
international companies, they are more likely to become entrepreneurial 
pharmacologist or CEO of the local street-corner business.

education is a must. we just have to figure out how to do it right without 
hurting the u.s. school child AND those who have immigrated legally.

it is those who immigrate legally who are the most frustrated because they 
jumped through all the hoops, learned american history (probably better than i 
did sleeping through that class) and learn the constitution, much better than 
most people that i know, including my fellow Soldiers.

-sarge

cuban refugees are handled different.  in 1965 President Johnson said that 
cubn refugees who seek asylum in the u.s. would be so granted and along with 
that it became law that they would also become american citizens.

president clinton signed a presidential decree that requires the Coast Guard 
to intercept and return the refugees to their country of origin or another 
country in the area of their original country, say: hati, etc.

this act was taken by prez billy, due to the fact that the way the law was 
stated, the cubans only had to touch u.s. soil to become a citizen.

it is crap like this that needs to stop.  here is a country that is 90 miles 
off our coast and we treat them like dirt, while we openly embrace a country 
with who we waged a violent and unpopular war: vietnam.

not that the vietnamese are not a good people, but we normalized relations 
with a country that is horrendous, exploitive and murderous to its people.

we normalized relations with our "sworn enemies" after WWII and they are our 
best buddies, but we can't get over the grudge between castro and our previous 
administration.

BTW: in california, you do not have to produce a license or i.d. card to vote 
in any election.  there is not a printed list, you can vote regardless of what 
district you are from and may be in at the time.

L.A. has even introduced a bill that will specifically allow undocumented 
aliens the "right" to vote in general elections in their city, state and 
federal elections.

this i believe is very, very wrong.  i have spent many a year in germany, 
south america and of course the middle-east but in no fashion have any of them 
(nor should they) afforded me the right to vote in any of their elections.

-sarge

Some parts of the country will have bi-lingual forms, and perhaps this is the 
way it should be.  Again, this is part of what the census is for.  But I still 
don't feel that the public schools should be bi-lingual.  They should learn 
English and then enroll into an English speaking public school.  Most of the 
children born here grow up speaking English and Spanish already.

Seems to me that most of our forms around here (So Cal) have both English and 
Spanish.  Automated phone answering systems usually say press 1 for Spanish, 
etc.

And yes, other countries do bilingual forms... for example our neighbors to 
the north who have both English and French as their official languages... I 
think they have everything in both languages, don't they?

Okay, Arizona doesn't have the same requirements that we have in GA and TN 
regarding school registration.  Here we must provide a drivers license, birth 
certificate, and proof of our address.  I don't know how Florida handles people 
coming from Cuba, but at the same time we don't have ANYWHERE NEAR the number 
of people entering our country from Cuba as we do Mexico.

As for bi-lingual forms, I agree.  Do any other countries do bi-lingual forms?  
The official language of this country is English, however Spanish and other 
languages should be welcome here as long as the people can speak English when 
dealing with our government (including the public school systems).  

Like I said before, I welcome EVERY opportunity great and small to expose my 
family to foreign languages and cultures...ESPECIALLY THE FOOD!  But they must 
be able speak and write in English in order to live here.

You're welcome..... LOL....

Dropping a topic like this here is like throwing 45 cal.'s into a fire pit, 
and then stirring it up

8^)

kc5f-d:

both TFish and myself hit on the jobs portion.  we have some minor 
disagreements, well, maybe moderate disagreements, but that is what debate is 
about, to come to the middle ground.

in arizona, there is a huge, huge number of students who have crossed the 
border after having been born outside the u.s., and this causes a burden on 
the schools. the same thing happens in florida, texas and new mexico.

even oklhoma adopted a law a few years ago that forbid the government agencies 
(state and local) from doing bi-lingual forms. it just cost too much money. 
the same in florida, texas and new mexico, but they have not passed such 
reforms as far as i know.

what is important, is that a half-dozen people of different backgrounds, 
different politcal positions and so on, have come to agree on many aspects of 
the argument.

if we could get our world leaders to do that, instead of walking out on 
meetings and raking each their peers over the coals at every opportunity, i 
could be a full time programmer/analyst instead of having to go overseas and 
play Soldier every 18 months.

-sarge

kc5f-d
<if a new system can be worked out for workers, we'd probably have LESS 
Mexicans here.>  Probably so, after all that is what it should be about...to 
help them create new jobs and better schools.  To help them become more 
successful.  And, to enforce our immigration laws to the same extent that 
Mexico does except that we should punish our own people (the employer) even 
worse than the worker.  All the red tape should be eleminated and replaced with 
a better streamlined process (maybe using a website to search for American job 
openings approved by the governments) to help find work for people in Mexico.

<Most of my Mexican neighbors and friends don't want to be American citizens, 
they just want work to provide for their families>  I think that is true.  I 
also know that some are affraid to start the "process" in fear of being 
deported since they are not here legally, so they just keep their head down and 
keep on keeping on.  My wife want to become a citizen, but before she does I 
want to find out how they would effect us if/when we ever wanted to move to 
Mexico.

I would love to see some of our manufacturing jobs move to Mexico and replaced 
here with some of those new jobs that Obama promised to create.  Even encourage 
some of our manufacturing to move back to Mexico from China (this would avoid 
any more of the "lead" problems we have had).

If our government is willing to police the world and provide aid, even to our 
enemies, then why can that not be part of the solution concerning our friends 
south of the border instead of part of the problem?

Neil,
We talked about how the media (the news) is of great infulence in this country 
in earlier in this thread.  I think you are right that Mexicans seem to 
be "hated" by citizens of this country (and government of this country) mostly 
in part to the media.  

Trust me, these Mexicans that end up on our news do not represent most 
Mexicans.  And, behind the seens there are just as many (if not more) Americans 
in gangs and these gangs in part probably drove many teens from Mexico to form 
their own gangs to protect themselves from other gangs...just my opinion.

Ralphamiller
We have talked about moving there and we are planning to some day...but for now 
we don't for a couple of the same reasons Mexicans are coming here...no jobs 
and lower educational standards.  Perhaps when the kids are older we may give 
it a try, or if/when I loose my IT job and am forced to start over with a new 
career we may. 

But you are right, I think I would be happier living there.  Life is just 
different in Mexico.  I am also sure there are things I don't like about Mexico 
compared to the US, but I don't know when only visiting for a couple of weeks 
every once in a while.

I'd like to thank both Sarge and TFisher for their well thought out suggestions.
 One item I haven't seen mentioned is that if a new system can be worked out for
workers, we'd probably have LESS Mexicans here.  Most of my Mexican neighbors
and friends don't want to be American citizens, they just want work to provide
for their families.  But when the borders are locked down, they can't return to
Mexico for any part of the year since they won't be able to return, and then
they also want to bring their families here so they can be with them.  If they
could travel freely with the proper (new) documentation, they'd work here part
of the year and then return to Mexico to be with their families.  But small
farms aren't now in a position to apply for or receive the visas now available,
and definitely not for seasonal work.

If the tables were turned and Americans were trying to get into Mexico, then I 
would expect that the Americans would have their possessions confiscated, they 
would be beaten up, thrown in prison for 2 years and be deported back to the 
US.  Pretty much what any South American can expect if they cross into 
Mexico.  Mexico has their immigration laws and they enforce them without 
hesitation.

I would also guess that a lot of American attitude to "Mexicans" (basically 
anyone from south of the US border not limited to citizens of the country of 
Mexico), is in part due to the coverage provided by the media.  Listen to 
most "news" stories - Hispanic gangs shooting up neighbourhoods in Los 
Angeles.  Drug cartels wiping out entire law enforcement units in Mexican 
villages.  Folks illegally crossing the US border taking jobs from US citizens 
(working for lower wages than the US citizen can or will work for), not paying 
taxes, putting a strain on schools and hospital emergency rooms.  Then 
marching in the streets waving Mexican flags and demanding their "rights".  
Now try finding some good stories about Mexican immigrants...

People believe what they are told in the news on TV.  Is it any wonder that 
the typical US citizen does not trust Mexicans?

Tfisher - sounds like you might be happier living in mexico.

...I like the scene in the movie The Day After Tomorrow where the Mexican 
border is closed to Americans trying to flea to Mexico.  Makes you stop and 
think...what would it be like if the tables were turned and we needed their 
help.  Would we be welcome in Mexico after the way we have treated them?  

The Mexican people that I know are among the friendliest people I know.  They 
are always willing to do whatever they can to help others.  And the time that I 
have spent in Mexico has been GREAT!  Most of them treated me like I was some 
kind of celebrity or something.  A couple were treating me that way in hopes of 
getting money, but most were genuinely being kind and trying to make me feel 
welcome in their country.  I love to visit and cannot wait for our next trip!  

We have visitors that come here from Mexico, however their stories are very 
different.  They describe Americans as rude, hatefull, snobby, and racist (or 
anti-Mexican as one person put it).  They always love to come and visit family 
here, but at the same time they hate having to put up with our culture.  They 
too realize that there are good people here and bad ones...it just seems like 
there are more bad ones.

Are you saying that ALL these children are "undocumented"?  I doubt it...many 
were born here and have a US birth certificate which means they are legally 
entitled to attend public schools since they are citizens of this country.  I 
am sure in some areas there may be several "undocumented" children attending 
public schools, but I also doubt it's anywhere close to the numbers you are 
thinking...I could be wrong, but I would be VERY surprised if I am.

There is another way to attain a lower student to teacher ratio.  That is for 
the local governments to take into account the classroom sizes and add new 
classrooms/teachers where necessary and as they are suppose to do.  Again, 
don't miss the fact that the "undocumented" parents are paying in taxes just 
like you and I.  

Multi-lingual teachers are NOT necessary.  English is the language used in this 
country and all the children I know (I spend a LOT of time at my children's 
school) from countries such as Mexico and India speak English, even when their 
parents speak very little English (we have a lot of Indians here too). In order 
to attend schools around here they must already know English...at least that is 
what I was told by a 3rd grade teacher.  I have never heard of a public school 
teaching courses in a foreign language unless the subject was the foreign 
language.  I guess that is something that could be decided at by the state or 
local governments whether to allow that or not, I don't really know.  But I do 
agree that if that is happening then it should be stopped.  

Yes, we must do something...I don't think anyone has suggested "free borders".  
That would be just as reckless as our current "efforts".  

Here are my thoughts:
1. Companies that hire undocumented workers must be penalized, and the 
penalties should go up after each offense.  
2. The undocumented workers should be imprisoned prior to deportation.  
3. Companies that cannot find local workers to fill a job should be able to go 
through proper channels to find a good match in a border country to work the 
job.  That worker should be able to come here and work for some period of time 
without paying any fees up front (the fees should be paid when the person is 
earning an income and maybe partially paid by the employeer).  
4. We need to work with them to develop a better educational system.  Some 
areas like Guadalajara have good schools, they just need to find ways to keep 
teenagers from dropping out and maybe implement a more advanced curriculum at 
an earlier age.
5. Our government should encourage American owned companies who have moved 
operations to China, India, or somewhere else over seas to relocate back to 
Mexico providing more jobs in Mexico (through tax breaks perhaps).  We should 
also help them find ways to create new jobs.
6. Our military and police should work with their military and police to 
provide both training and assistance to help with the drug cartel problem and 
the violence around the borders.  This will take money out of some pockets so 
we have to be trying to help them create new jobs at the same time.  Stopping 
the violence around their borders will help bring back the tourists which will 
help those local economies.

there is no doubt that the schools are over crowded. removing the undocumented 
would cut the class size by at 1/4 in many districts and 1/3 to 1/2 in some 
districts.  this allows for a lower student to teacher ratio.

there should be an education process, yes, but it is difficult when a district 
must maintain multi-lingual teachers in the same classroom. this gives only 1/2 
of the time, at best to each language. in no manner is this acceptable.

there is never a good reason for being rude. as a cop, i can tell you that you 
get written up quickly and punsishment is pretty severe, as it should be. as a 
Soldier, i can tell you that i as first sergeant will have the a$$ of 
whoever i find being racially prejudice.

we must do something, but free borders is not the answer. there must be checks 
and balances there, just like everywhere.

i know the mexican people get a bad rap on the border crossing. it is all south 
american countries and even asian, european and middle east countries as well 
that are legitimately looking for a better life.

they should be given that opportunity, but there must be a method in place to 
remove the bad influences. taking a side with the government of mexico to curb 
the drug trade is the best start. a brutal one, but necessary.

remove the violence to the general public and we reduce the mules used to carry 
the drugs accross the border, which many do for money, but others due to the 
fact that they know their spouses, children, parents, cats, dogs and even their 
goldfish will be tortured and brutally killed.

we've got to start somewhere and giving aid, not a free ticket is the way to 
begin in my opinion.

-sarge

Paul,
<These people believe they have a moral and religious mandate to kill millions 
of us, or do anything else they need to do to convert us to a weird religion 
complete with a totally authoritarian set of Sharia laws>  I have to believe 
that most of this is because of the way our country carries out it's foreign 
policies, the way we "think" we are the world police and sticking our noses in 
their business, trying to tell them what to do and not do, trying to convert 
them to our form of government (look at how well it's working out now).  

My point is that I don't think we would have much to worry about if our 
government was "smaller" and if we protected our own borders as opposed to 
occupying other countries.  We haven't always been hated world wide as we have 
been the past 40 or so years.  Sure, we've always had enemies...but we also use 
to have a lot more allies that would stand side by side with us.  We've 
alienated almost every country that use to consider us a "friend".  This makes 
the world a dangerious place for Americans.

Neil
<The Mexican govt. needs to get off their collective behinds and have a chat 
with Mr Obama>  Well they have been meeting with presidents...I remember Bush 
making president Fox (Mexico's previous president) a bunch of promises if he 
were elected.  Bush was elected and for the most part turned his back on 
Presidente Fox and Mexico.  

Not to long ago President Felipe Calderón came to America to speak to congress 
(I guess he is giving up on dealing just with US Presidents behind closed 
doors).  He voiced his concerns about immigration laws (specifically Arizona's 
recent law) saying that "it is a law that not only ignores a reality that 
cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial 
profiling as a basis for law enforcement."  He received a lot of cheers, mainly 
from the Democratic side of the chamber.

I don't think John McCain was there, but he did later issue a statement saying  
that it was "unfortunate and disappointing the president of Mexico chose to 
criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue 
during a trip that was meant to reaffirm the unique relationship between our 
two countries."  Doesn't John know that President Calderón isn't a Democrate?  
I don't see the Mexican President's statements so much as criticism as I do him 
wanting our government to see what our laws are really saying to the outside 
world.  He was simply wanting to start some dialog.

Let's face it, Mexicans have a reason to feel like they are being singled out 
and treated unfairly.  When Jamaican immigrants can come to this country, 
Cubans get almost a free pass into this country, and other countries are 
treated MUCH differently I have to agree that Mexico is treated differently.  

My wife of ten years, who is a legal resident, is often treated differently 
(rudely) when she is out at stores or whereever without me.  It pisses me off 
to see Americans treat non-Americans like that for no reason.  It really makes 
it hard for me to be pround of this country when I see this country act 
different than what this country use to stand for...especially when they are 
doing it to my own family!

Sarge
<their children are "helping" to fill the classrooms beyond the capabilities of 
the districts.>  Again, I don't see this as the fault of the immigrants...all 
though it's easier for the school boards to point the finger at that to help 
them make excuses.  Do the schools not have an enrollment process where you 
live?  The Census should also help with things like this.  We have just seen 1 
new high school and 2 new elementary schools in our area, and I promise you 
that it's not immigrants filling up the classrooms...if all the immigrants left 
this country this problem would still be around and the school boards would 
have to find new excuses for raising taxes, overcrowded classrooms, etc.

Right on Paul.Raulerson. Freedom comes at a cost, sometimes with blood as Sarge
no doubt knows first hand, always with a monetary cost (taxes), and sometimes
with disappointment that public policy just didn't go my way this time.

All things considered, I ain't moving anytime soon.

You know what gets me?  I am basically a libertarian (with a small "l") and dislike big government, 
unearned entitlements, and most anything proposed by the far left *and* the far right. 

But a country that runs the way I would prefer, with maximum personal liberty, pretty much a free 
market, open carry rights, and so forth, would be really too vulnerable to the kinds of idiots around the 
world who want to nuke us, torture our women and children, and enslave us all. 

These people believe they have a moral and religious mandate to kill millions of us, or do anything else 
they need to do to convert us to a weird religion complete with a totally authoritarian set of Sharia laws. 

It looks to me like a representative democratic republic, which is what we have, is about the best 
compromise between freedom and tyranny that has ever been devised. It isn't perfect, and everybody 
dislikes *something* about it, but it works. 

To me things like people wearing the flag on their butt isn't an act of desecration, but an act of 
stupidity. It is stupid to tear down institutions that are in place to protect you and your women and 
children, so long as that institution is working and is not a direct threat to you. It is even more stupid to 
do so in front of people who disagree with you. Stupidity has its price though - they can expect to pay it 
sooner or later. 

-Paul

yes, but i always wonder if the incident that hcedmondson wrote of, was 
politically motivated.

if it was, then it was done with the most wrong of reasons.

-sarge

I think ICE was in need of making an example, this time it just happened to be
Brewster, reality is if they don't go kick some a$$ once in a while they
end up like my neighbor's toothless pit bull.

neilrh's idea seems sound, how does a country negotiate such a deal with the US?

So the difference is: Jamaica is in partnership with the US to provide guest 
workers and Mexico doesn't.  The Jamaican workers have permission to be here, 
and the Mexicans didn't.

The fix seems to be relatively simple: The Mexican govt. needs to get off 
their collective behinds and have a chat with Mr Obama, and request a deal 
like what Jamaica has.

Tfish:

there is most definately a strain on our school systems. because of the 
undocumented citizens, their children are helping to fill the classrooms 
beyond the capabilities of the districts.

by having a better regulated work visa system, allowing family members to move 
with the worker, we can not only broaden the tax base, the undocumented will 
be able to file for their state, local and federal taxes without fear of being 
deported.

i am not for amnesty, but i do support positive reform that gives a fair 
opportunity to obtain citizenship.

i disagree with the ICE tactics. that hcedmondson writes of.  i have not seen 
that story, but that is a textbook example of why there be a better work visa 
program. one that is regulated so that the scared, undocumented are not being 
taken advantage of and being paid far below proper wages.

by assisting in education programs and boosting the economy we can help folks 
who would otherwise remain in their communities to be able to afford to do 
so.  this also helps raise the education level of the people, making them more 
marketable both in their country and ours.

if the company that hcedmondson wrote of had used the proper procedures to 
procure documented workers from south of the border, then there would not have 
been an issue for ICE to overreact to...though again, i disagree with ICE's 
tactics in that case.

by using proper channels to have obtained south of the border workers, the 
company would have had to pay a certain wage. i worked for companies in the 
past that exploited the undocumented worker and underpaid them to no end. if 
one of them were to complain, then the others would shut them up for fear of 
mass deportation.

does not rise to the level of forced prostitution but it is very nearly 
indentured service.  reprehensible no matter how you look at it, as the "pimp" 
companies are abusive and exploit their employees with threats of violence or 
deportation.

i love my country, but i have to agree that many (or most) of the idiots that 
have run it in my lifetime have been nothing but leeches upon the body of the 
public, sucking them dry at every opportunity.

-sarge

ICE cleaned out a town near me last year I believe, Brewster, WA. If I recall
right the town's population got sawed in half when the raids were all done. Now
the biggest employer in town, Gebbers Farms, is flying in anywhere from 500 to
700 Jamaican guest workers to pick fruit. The story can be googled.

Not taking sides, but it sure just doesn't seem like much got accomplished in
the big scheme of things. Deport 700, import 700. Maybe they could have just
conferred the same visas to the Mexicans whom they deported and saved a whole
bunch of jet fuel, bus diesel and lots of hard feelings for all involved, except
maybe the Jamaicans.

I wasn't aware that there were stiffer employer penalties.  Just that the 
legal approach taken by the current administration is leveraging the employer 
fine & imprisonment route.

Current US (federal) law attacks illegal immegration on 2 fronts - export the 
illegal immegrant, and fine any employer on a per case scale.  The Bush admin 
concentrated on work raids to catch illegals and deport them, but didn't 
bother fining the employer.  The Obama admin is going after the employers, and 
the illegals end up deporting themselves because there are no jobs (partly due 
to the economy and partly because of the employer crack down).

The Obama admin is attacking illegal immegration through employer fines at a 
far higher rate than the Bush admin performed ICE raids..... does this mean 
that the Obama admin is more racist?! :O

Sarge,
I agree with most of what you said...one point that I take exception to is that 
Mexicans "strain our schools".  Most all of them are working and paying their 
taxes just like any citizen.  

Most Mexicans I know around here that don't have a job will move around till 
they find one and after a couple of months they will go back to Mexico if they 
cannot find a job since the cost of living is at least less there.

Anyway, my in-laws are here without current papers and have children in 
elementary school.  Both parents are working very long hours.  Both kids are 
making A's, making the honor roll, and behave much better than most other kids 
I've seen.  If anything they are helping, not hurting, our local economy and at 
least the school they attend.  

Of course my children know Spanish, but if a child of say an illegal Chinese 
immigrant were in one of my children's class I think I would welcome that 
wonderful opportunity for my child to learn more about another country's 
culture and language.  

Most of these folks are not here for a free ride.  They aren't here to do us 
any harm...they just want to earn a living and be as much a part of our society 
(for some reason) as they can.

Well that's another point...if it's already a federal law then why create more 
legislation?  They should look at other ways to enforce the law and reasons why 
the law is being broken and attack the real issues.  

I know the supporters for the new AZ state law say there isn't anything in it 
that shows hatred or discrimination, but when the president of Mexico and most 
all Mexicans disagree then we should stop and listen and work with them in 
order to come to some kind of agreement that doesn't make us look any worse on 
the world stage then we already look.

There are actually new stiffer penalties against employers that I do like.  
This makes it appear that we are going after outself and not the immigrants who 
are just trying to survive in most cases.

Anyone who enters Mexico illegally is imprisoned for one to two years.  Here we 
imprison illegals for a variable length of time (generally a week or 2 based on 
what I've seen around here) before they are transported back to their home 
state.  Each time you reenter Mexico illegally the penalty goes up.  We have a 
friend who's husband is now in his fifth year of his sentence and he was told 
he has 5 more years to go.

This seems harsh, but it's what we should be doing.  We should be proactive to 
try to be a part of Mexico's solution and attack the issues that are bringing 
so many people to our country illegally, but we should also strickly enforce 
our laws and the punishment should be more than a mere smack on the hand.

Tfish:  you and i have much of the same idea and goals for our nation, i 
believe. the sarge's (partial) solution:

1) leave coming into the u.s. undocumented a crime, however, overhaul the work
   work visa program so that it is easier for day laborers to come to work and
   live here.  much like the student visa.  give a 2-3 year license to work in
   this country and then their time and behavior here, becomes the basis for 
   becoming a permanent alien resident with step-ladder approach to being a
   full fledged citizen...not all want to be u.s. citizens.

2) allow our government to assist and augment the mexican police, much like we
   did and still do in colombia, to put a major dent in the drug cartels.

3) instead of sending work to china, bite the bullet as citizens and pay a bit
   more for our goods and give our neighbors to the south jobs. they may not be
   paid u.s. minimum wage, but they wont be paid 10 cents an hour either.  the
   ramification is that the dollar-tree and 99-cent type stores will now be the
   two-buck and 1.88 store.  this bolsters the economy in mexico, they get paid
   in their currency (keeping more u.s. dollars off the black market) and in
   the long run, reduces the reason to commit a crime by entering into another
   country illegally.

4) there is the Doctor's Without Borders program. we can come up with a like
   program that allows us to assist in hospitals near the border to provide
   proper care and medicine to the mexican population. again, this helps to
   curb the drive/desire to cross our borders illegally.

5) stop the instant citizenship of babies that "just happen" to be born in the
   u.s.  i know this is quite a subject, but i do not think that we should have
   to be burdened with a family, just because they crossed the border against
   the law, to plop out a kid.  all this does is strain our schools and the
   hospitals and welfare programs because we have to allow the parent to remain
   in the country until the kid turns 18.

6) open schools accross the border to help with the education issues. i know we
   have our own problems here, but helping there will have a positive impact on
   the newer generations of children being born there.

7) immediately we should bolster their water and irrigation systems. it works.
   clean water, clean food, less pesticides and such are instrumental in the 
   development of children and their ability to ward off diseases and birth
   defects and of course HUNGER!

of course this will initially cost tens-of millions of dollars to begin with, 
and that much more each year until we can help our neighbors become self 
reliant and prosperous.

give me 20 good and honest men and women and we can define a propery phased in 
project that will end up saving billions of dollars over the time that we 
spend hundreds of millions over a 15 year period.

-sarge

The AZ law codifies as a state law, something that is already a Federal Law 
(some opine that this is why the law should be challenged).  Incidently other 
states also have these types of laws on the books, including CA - though in 
Los Angeles the police operate under special order 40, which instructs them to 
ignore the state law!!

US immegration law does have avenues for foreign workers to come here and "do 
the jobs that Americans don't want to do" - though a vast many of these jobs 
appear to more realistically be "jobs that Americans won't do for the wage 
that the corporations want to pay".  There are many Americans who have lost 
jobs because their employer can pay someone without papers under the table far 
less.  These people cannot access the same protections, minimum wage, etc that 
a citizen can demand.

Obviously, the system of work visas needs to be improved.  Foreign workers 
need to have the same protections that native workers have.  Though I would 
suggest that maybe the corporation offering the job should eat the paperwork 
fee - anything else creates a level of indenture, that is probably against 
some clause in the US constitution!

There is, understandably, a lot of animosity to an amnesty program.  Folks 
here on temporary work visas, who are hoping for acceptance for their Green 
Card applications by lottery, before their visas run out - people who are 
actively benefitting the US economy and want to be here, but by law cannot 
stay.  Folks who went through the process to come here legally, or are in that 
process.  Funniest thing I've heard is a legal Mexican complaining about the 
darned illegals who "stole" his job!!

Sure it needs to be fixed, but it seems the political will is not there to do 
anything.

btw - ever looked at the penalty for being illegal in Mexico?

I understand Sarge...everyone is "prejudice".  That's a human characteristic 
that most people wish they didn't have. Some take it too far with hate crimes 
and name calling making their side of whatever the debate may be look like the 
wrong side.

This is why I don't like the AZ law.  Our nation (government) speaks it's 
opinions and values through it's laws and I think there are far more important 
issues to worry about then immigration. What I mean to say is that "people" are 
the real issue here. 

Wouldn't be better to focus on why many of these people are so desperate to 
come here and try to focus on solving any issues there?  If there wasn't a 
need, or as great a need, to come here then wouldn't that solve this 
immigration issue?  Why do so many people from Cuba, Mexico, and even Guatemala 
take great risks (some even put their very lives at risk) to come here?  

I know some Mexicans that came here needed work.  Some send more than half 
their wages back home to their families.  They pay the same tax percentages as 
the rest of us and never draw it out.  Heck, they don't even file for their tax 
refund at the end of the year.  Yes, there are also some who get paid under the 
table.  

If our government can help people, like in Iran, after a natural desaster then 
why can they not work with the Mexican government to see if something can be 
done to help their economy since we are partially to blame.  Why are we 
partially to blame?  Remember when you were young and many Americans were 
loosing their jobs because anufacturing facilities were moving to Mexico 
because the labor was cheaper...well, now many of these same companies have 
found labor to be cheaper in China and India and are moving these facilities 
(or have already moved) over seas taking away jobs from Mexican families.

I know a couple that are here because they had jobs at one of these 
manufacturing facilities that moved to China about 8 years ago.  They moved 
around to other cities in Mexico before deciding they had to do whatever it 
takes to feed their families.  They made the right choice, some are deciding to 
hook up with the drug cartel and as you know that is another problem that 
effects this country.  

There are some jobs here that people just don't want. People from Mexico would 
be glad to work those jobs, but the companies are afraid to hire on people 
without the proper paperwork.  This "paperwork" cost money, something these 
people don't have.  What is wrong with setting up some sort of recruitment 
process that would allow a person in Mexico to come here knowing they have a 
job, going to work for that company and having the fees deducted from their 
paycheck to pay for this service.  Instead of paying fees up front in order to 
enter this country legally, they would be allowed to come straight to a job 
waiting for them and pay those fees through payroll deductions.  This process 
makes more sense.

If something could be done to help our Mexican neighbors economy then it may 
also go a long way to help out with the drug problems in Mexico and even here. 
Instead we continue to shut our doors in their faces and speak insults through 
our laws and our actions.

When we help our neighbors (Mexico and Canada) we also help ourselves.  When we 
hurt our neighbors we also hurt ourselves.

Metaphoric extreme Sarge... I have never killed anyone I was caught for... LOL

Oh by the way... not sure of the radio station I was listening to was joking 
or not, but they said that Az. passed another law that does not allow 
"Man-imals" (1/2 man-1/2 animal)... it seems that Ohio is the only other state 
that has this law.... LOL....

i dont think we need to execute anybody for trivial matters, but i agree that 
we need to be more pro-active in our attention to detail when it comes to 
security.

it was not the 80+ year old WWII veteran who was a terrorist suspect, but the 
airline still confiscated his Medal of Honor..because it was pointed and could 
be used as a weapon.  i call BS on that.

i disagree with the laws of other nations that criminalize the wearing of a 
full-face veil in public. while that is NOT a tenant of Islam, that is how it 
is in interpreted and followed by many.

even the Orthodox Christian, the Orthodox Jewish and other faiths call for 
covering the hair.  what's next, imprison the person who wears a hat?

yes, we have got to stop this out of control political correctness, but we do 
need to prevent prejudice and bigotry from driving the effort.

i agree with arizona's being able to write and sign into law their new 
immigration law, but i, as a Soldier and a Police Academy Graduate know how 
hard it is to separate personal prejudice and racial profiling from your 
professional duties.

-sarge

Good one Uncle Bob.... but as usual having a "black & White" 
vision/prespective about things you loose the humnaity of things.
It, to this day, still amazes me how "cavalier" everyone has always been about 
9/11... let's face it, that is when the lapel flag was born for what it is 
today. A sign of respect for those who died, and those who died trying to save 
the ones who died !
If your precious John Hancock building, or their precious NW Needle had been  
taken out, you would have a very different perspective. I actually heard 
people making jokes that day of the incident and I was asked if i wanted to go 
home from work, cause my boss knew I was gonna beat the crap outta someone if 
they didn't stop with the jokes.
I knew people that were there, that made it and didn't.... In fact one of my 
skiing buddies from back east was supposed to be on Flight 93, but get this, 
the axle broke on his truck on the "ON Ramp" to Newark airport, so he missed 
that flight.
I heard comments of... "It's NY... if they are such bad asses, let them take 
care of it". And then they would laugh. I said it years ago, and will say it 
today... Disregarding all the "conspiracy theories" and what not, that was NOT 
an attack on NY city, it was an ATTACK ON AMERICA ! And showing the public 
that you recognize and are proud to be an American is a given right, as Fish 
indicated.
"Just cause they are after me doesn't mean I'm paraniod".... yea right... 
where else in the world can you move to a country and just because you swarm 
it in the masses, you think you can change it to your beliefs. This "Global" 
Police force crap is going to be the end of us !
And we are just as guilty... we are so worried about who the next leader is 
going to be for a foriegn country, that "we" try to decide what is the lesser 
of 2 evils, and "we" try to influence it.... Maybe we should stop being so 
damn politically correct and start acting like everyone else for a little 
while till they get a taste of their own medicine.... Come to America and 
don't follow the laws, execute them ! Definitely don't give them house and 
home in prison... You can be shot on the side of the road in South America for 
DUI.
Has anyone heard the latest..... "We should take all the American Elderly and 
put them in prison, and take all the prisoners and put them in nursing 
homes... why ? This way we KNOW our elderly are getting 3 square meals a day, 
free room and board, protection, free medical services... and so on, and the 
prisoners... welp, put them in the nursing homes, they get crappy small tight 
rooms, garbage for a meal, if they get their meal, THEY pay $5,000 a month 
to stay there and they have to pay their medical.

I don't care how we do it... lapel flags or whatever.... but this damn country 
better pull it's pants up and stop taking it in the.... But this whole topic 
is an insult to us, that they even DARED to make such an announcement... the 
media being netrual in the 1st place is an oxymoron in and of itself !

as a Soldier, i can tell you that there has been quite some uproar about 
wearing the american flag on the right shoulder.

while most, if not all Soldiers appreciate the wear of the flag, it has gone 
through some changes in location on the shooulder.

1st: Former Wartime Shoulder Sleeve Insignia (combat patch), special forces, 
ranger, sapper, airborne patch and tabs were worn ABOVE the american flag.
   a) the flag was a required uniform item.
   b) i, like many others, removed my combat patch, airborne tab, etc on the
      right shoulder because we felt that no "ancillary" patch should be placed
      above the u.s. flag.
   c) with the new digital (crapiest uniform ever designed) the guidelines have
      changed so that the u.s. flag is worn above all other patches on the 
      right shoulder.  i now wear my FWSSI patch and airborne tab, again.

2nd: the u.s. flag was worn by american troops during WWII, but the flag was
     "facing forward" so that the stars were oriented so that they were to the 
     "rear" of the shoulder.

     today, we wear the "reverse" flag, so that the stars are oriented to the 
     "front" of the shoulder, thus making it apear as if the colors are like
     they are being caried on a flag-pole in a forward march.

simple change that made sense to most of us, but the historians and the WWII 
vets were in an uproar that the flag did not represent their generation's war 
and the wear of the flag.

i believe in personal freedoms, but i cringe at the thought of someone burning 
or otherwise being disrespectful to our flag. i have never, and will never, 
condone the desecration of any nations flag.

i took quite a bit of flack from my troops and a couple of superior..well 
higher ranking, anyway... sergeants majors and officers who were 
pi$$ed that i took care to lower the flag in basur (Bah-Shur), iraq 
and presented it to the iraqi major for safe-keeping.

i do have a flag lapel pin, i wear it to official functions that are business 
attire, but i dont wear it every day on my polo-shirt or other civilian attire.

if anyone thinks it should not be worn as clothing, just look at the Miracle 
on Ice uniform when the u.s. won the olympic gold.  nobody complained then.  
and as a guy, i do have to admit that some of the u.s. flag inspired bikinis 
are generally pleasing to the eye as well, although i do like the brazilian 
bikinis, too. :p

-sarge

You are sort of right, Bob...section 1 of Title 4 of the US Code is a US 
federal law, but there is no penalty for failure to comply with it.  The 
Supreme Court ruled that any enforcement of the flag code would conflict with 
the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

The flag code says you shouldn't wear an actual flag.  A lapel pin is not 
considered replicas.  Several congressmen and presidents have worn American 
flag lapel pins.  And, American troops can wear the US flag insignia on their 
right shoulder.  Even the Boy Scouts have an American flag patch on their 
uniforms (some of them).

Lance Armstrong wore a flag wrapped around his neck on the cover of the June 
2010 issue of Men's Journal. Section 8D of the Flag Code states, "the flag 
should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never 
be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free."  
But perhaps this is his way of expressing himself and using his freedom he has 
the right to ignore the flag code and wear it to show pride for his country.

Kid Rock wore the American flag as a shirt during that 2004 Super Bowl half-
time show, but nobody noticed that because of Janet Jackson's "costume 
malfunction".  Like Lance, if he's truly pround to be an American and he was 
simply expressing his patriotism then I see nothing wrong with this.  I 
probably wouldn't do it, but I don't see anything wrong with wearing the flag 
for the right reasons.  

Wearing an American flag lapel pin shows respect for the actual flag and draws 
attention to the flag...it does NOT dishonor or show disrespect.  It is also 
acceptable according to the Flag Code.

Seems like EdMan is following a redherring. 
Technically the official flag guidelines for U.S. flags doesn't permit wearing
the Flag as clothing. But most people, just like religion, think whatever they
want to do with their Flag is okay, but if you prevent them, its not okay--the
darn Country they're saying is being hurt by NOT wearing it, officially states
that it can't be worn. So do you ignore the laws of the land that makes you
"free" just to wear logo'd clothing? 

Hey, buddy, find something real to complain about.

there is no reson for us to allow SOME countries to have WMD.  simply because 
they WILL use them as a first strike, preferably a suprise attack against the 
U.S.

our srongest competitors China, Russia, France, Etc (did not say enemies) are 
the only ones capable of firing a long range nuke or chem/bio weapon. it is the 
cowardly snivlers who frighten me, since they are the ones who would make that 
suprise attack against us and other nations they see as a threat.

there is a moral concience (we seem to take it too far at times) that the 
stronger and more financially secure nations must exercise. it IS up to an 
organizzation like the United Nations is supposed to be, to prevent the sheer 
terror opportunities those who perceive us as enemies.

i agree (and did with noriega) that it is wrong to remove a world leader from 
power by force, since there are those nations who would call our previous 
administration criminal as well as the current one.  you just can't please some 
people, like chavez for example.

he still spouts the bile that america is evil and that president obama is as 
evil as president bush was touted to be. i dont believe for a minute that 
either are evil, only that they both have made some bone-head moves, say the 
wrong things at the wrong time and at least one of them tended to make up words 
on the fly. :)

i do believe that there are evil leaders in this world. those who oppress their 
people. it is our responsibilty to assist the people with emotional support and 
food that they do not starve.

what upsets me is that we get invovled, but we dont really protect.  if we did, 
we'd been in the middle of the hutu, tutsi genocide and put a stop to it...but 
no, they did not have oil and God forbid that debeers would let anybody else 
into a diamond country.

other peoples hate us though, because we are wealthy, we take care of our poor 
and we even take care of our homeless, when they allow us to.  only in this 
country can you be on food stamps, energy assistance to pay bills and still 
have telephone service and cable t.v.

we dont have to be the world police, but we do have an obligation to the rest 
of the world to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

remember though, one of our greatest detractors is iran, yet a couple years ago 
when they had that terrible earthquake, the u.s. was the first to send aid in 
the form of food, water and shelter to our "sworn enemies".

-sarge

Here is the way I see it:

I disagree that our government is in the “right” to remove the leader of a 
foreign country on the bases that they are “bad” people based on our 
government’s standards.  What happens when the leader of some foreign country 
decides that our government is bad and needs to be taken out?  

By the standards of many Americans our government is bad because they continue 
to allow legalized murder.  Our government has allowed more people to be 
murdered in this country then Saddam allowed to be murdered in Iraq, more 
unborn babys have now been killed then the number of people killed during the 
Holocaust.  And our current president is a supporter of abortion, so my opinion 
of him is that he’s just as bad as Saddam.

What gives us the right to tell other countries what weapons they can or cannot 
develop?  So they had some WMD, I am sure we also have some hidden away 
somewhere.  When they pull those weapons out and actually use them, that’s when 
the rest of the world, not just the US, should step up and take action.  It’s 
sort of like there is nothing wrong with us owning firearms, but to carry it 
into a public place and blow someone away is wrong.  

Why do other countries hate us so?  One reason is that we have so MANY problems 
of our own in this country, yet our government is trying to be like the Vatican 
and tell the rest of the world what to do and how to live.  Who are we to say 
we know better about foreign affairs than the leaders of those foreign 
countries?

DESERT SHIELD/STORM
-------------------
saddam got exactly what he wanted during the desert shield/storm timeframe, 
which was to drive up the price of oil. then came the "law of unintended 
consequences" wherein the US, Britain and others came to the rescue of 
Kuwait.  something that saddam did not think would happen, that it would be 
a "Middle East" thing and his cousins (Saudi/Kuwaiti/Jordanian/UAE/ETC) would 
handle it.

the original bush, having been the former director of the CIA, could see the 
big picture (possibly a bit myopic in hindsight) and saw a threat to the 
international market due to the cost of oil.

america can buy oil from anywhere...even hugo chavez will sell us oil, but it 
is the rest of the world that could not afford it. yes the super powers would 
buy it up and hoard it (China/Russia/U.S./Etc), but the affect on the world 
market would be devistating.

poor nations would war against each other and many, many lives would be lost 
in the violence. look at the headlines from today and you will see a very 
audacious and inventive method of stealing gasoline, via a 500 foot tunnel, 
several meters below the surface, used to tap into the refinery's pipeline.

the violence of poor nation upon poor nation, would have been on par with the 
Hutu and Tutsi genocide.

also, if poor nations have oil, larger nations are likely to nationalize them, 
such as was seen in the baltic states with the rise of a certain "red" 
military.  Heck, even the U.S. has done the same thing when they ran the 
indian (native american) off their land to allow for drilling, before gasoline 
was a true commodity even.

AFGHANISTAN
-----------
a legitimate battle-ground as long as you do so with the advance knowledge of 
how to distinguish your actual enemy from those who just live there. specific 
targets were being tracked, and the linebackers (al qaeda, taliban, etc) 
wanted to make it a stand up war, then a conflict of attrition.

valid target because of the fact the training and financing came from a select 
few individuals who were attempting to organize and terrorize the country of 
afghanistan.

IRAQ (OIF)
----------
here is where the slippery slope begins. saddam and his sons uday and qusay 
were very bad people who did horrific things to their people and land. they 
were disliked by their royal cousins in the other Arab nations, which is how 
we got permission to take them down.

did money come from iraq to fund attacking the U.S.?  most likely SOME did; 
SOME training probably took place there; SOME WMD was there, you can trust me 
on this, but not nearly what was reported by the foreign and local 
intelligence services.

valid target?  coming from one who has four tours there, i say "NO", when in 
conjunction with the 9/11 attacks, but "YES" because the horribly brutal 
leaders needed to be removed.

my preference?  the same as i did in 1989...go in, help remove from power and 
put in jail.  not start a war with people who had no grudge against us.

i probably overstated the obvious, and could find myself in hack if my 
superiors read this and know who SARGE is, but facts are facts and i tells 'em 
likes i sees them.

-sarge

Fisher - You want the truth?!?  You can't handle the truth !!!  (LOL)

The truth of the matter is Iraq was invaded and Saddam Hussein hung by the 
neck until dead BECAUSE he threatened to start buying oil (and trading 
generally) using the currency of Euros.

The American Dollar has value (like any other currency) only because WE and 
others around the world BELIEVE that if we accept some of those pieces of 
paper in trade for something valuable (like if I sell my television), that in 
the future we would be able to use those SAME pieces of paper to obtain
something else of value (such as a replacement new television or a computer or 
a pair of Reeboks).  Most people, I believe, take this fact way way way too 
much for granted (esp. the US Army which refuses to manufacture army boots).

The paper is accepted in almost every single country in the world.  China 
accepts it in exchange for US Army boots - for example.

If the time ever came when that last sentence was not true, then the US Dollar 
would fall, and fall some more.  

When Saddam (an oil seller) made this threat, there was NO GUARANTEE that it 
would be the beginning of a slippery slope and other countries in the middle 
east and then eventually elsewhere would follow (using Euros).  However, there 
was no guarantee to the contrary either.

The possibility of it being a slippery slope was simply too dangerous to 
ignore.  It would be like placing a blindfold around your head (with earplugs) 
and walking across a lonely country road in the middle of the night.  The 
chances of getting killed by a car are very remote.  However, the result of 
such a chance encounter is simply unacceptable.  I doubt many of us partake in 
that activity; and for that very reason.

Hussein had to be removed to set an example to others (whom I am sure were so 
informed during face to face meetings between high level diplomats).

There is no other reason.  It was not for oil.  We can buy all the oil we need 
and Saddam did not threaten to stop selling oil to the USA.  The 
undefined "strategic interests" of the United States in that case was the 
protection of the currency.

but of course, we will know you are americans...by your snobby, holier than 
thou attitude!  

and by your fast food and how you lick the cheese off your mcdonald's wrapper!

i've heard that one before !!!!!

-sarge

Ok, so you are saying that they won't know we're American unless we wear a pin?
/giggle

. . . not the way I heard it ;)

the truth is out there.

afghanistan for me, was a valid target, based on the fact that mr. bin laden 
was there.

iraq was a valid target, only in the fact that the German, French, Italian, 
Saudi, etc. versions of the CIA/FBI said there were WMD and that there was an 
intent to harm the U.S.

when you take into context however, you will find that two things stick out:

1) it was called OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom), NOT Operation Iraqi 
Libereration which spells out the most prominent reason for the invasion...uh, 
i mean liberation....(i.e. OIL)

2) like the comedian (whose name i cannot remember) said: "Wow! Shock and Awe!
   we really showed them iraqis what for, for what those Saudis did to us!

obviously there is nothing funny about war. of all the encounters i had in the 
two countries, i never met a person there who was a personal enemy, and left 
both countries proud that i had made several (local national) friends there.

the maudlin reality is, all nations involved lost something very important, 
the most valuable commodity we have...our children, our fathers, mothers, 
brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles & cousins.

heres to a day when I am out of work and can be a full time RPGxx programmer.

-sarge

Sarge,
I also bet that in all the time this country has had a military presence in a 
foreign country (especially Iraq) that we have never had the truth told as to 
why the heck we're sticking our noses in their business in the first place. 

But yes, there is no news like "bad" news so they stay away from all "good" 
news unless there is some amount of "entertainment" value to it.

<Under law you're innocent until proven guilty>  That is exactly what I said 
when I found out that she lost her house and her father used his entire 
retirement fund along with money pooled by many other family memebers and 
friends to pay for her defense.  That is part of the flaw in this system of 
ours...they say we're innocent and the prosecuting party is obligated to prove 
your guilt.  Yet, it seems that spending a half million dollars for her defense 
she was obligated to prove her innocents instead.  This was another case that 
should have NEVER seen the inside of a courtroom.

What is scary is that if you piss off the wrong person you too can be falsely 
accused for something...and, even if you are not found guilty you could loose 
everything you have!

"dirty laudry" - bad news sells commercial air-time.

in all the time i spent in afghanistan, iraq, panama, bosnia, etc., nobody 
published anything on the news about "Today, we have seen no deaths or 
injuries in the war.."

"Bubble headed bleach blond comes on at 5!
 Talks about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye!
 Gimme dirty laudry..."

-sarge

That is probably a fair assessment of the news - if someone goes missing 
they're only news worthy (important) if they're female, blonde and cute.  The 
oil leak in the gulf is important, the oil leak in the Niger Delta that was 
left to leak for a week before Exxon-Mobile finally fixed the pipe, but not 
before the entire eco-system was eliminated along with everyone who lives 
there's livlihood - not so important (you'll find that one in the Guardian 
(.co.uk) last week).

It's good that this woman is getting her story out - but I would still bet 
that most of the locals are entirely unaware that she was found not guilty, 
and would still be of the opinion that she is evil incarnate because of how 
she was portrayed initially by the local news.

Under law you're innocent until proven guilty - in the news media you're evil 
and deserve the death penulty until you're not newsworthy any more.

When facts become unimportant then people's lives become unimportant.  In this 
case, there are people who hurt the lady even more than the news programs.  The 
Sherriff and the prosecutor, along with all their “investigators”, and even the 
judge!

She was found not guilty...she and her lawyer are not suing several government 
agencies to bring some needed changes to the process in order to protect future 
accused people and young children from the reckless and unprofessional behavior 
seen during the course of her investigation and trial.  Too bad she cannot do 
anything about the local news programs here (at least FOX and ABC)!

While she will never have her life back, she is making sure that her story is 
told.  The day after her trail ended she appeared on the Today Show and just 
last week she appeared on Good Morning America and Nightline.  

The system around here is so corrupt that even the lawyers suck!  She had to go 
all the way to Michigan from North Georgia to find a lawyer she could trust.

Facts are not important - sensational stories sell advertising.
And if the woman was found not guilty or the charges were dismissed - then I 
bet nobody knows this, as they never close the story properly.

Parsifal 
ABC is just as bad as FOX, especially our local affiliate!  The local ABC 
affiliate pissed me off a few months back when they were covering a story about 
a teacher who allegedly molested three young girls.  They had this poor lady 
behind bars months before the trial and without ever knowing all the facts or 
reporting any of the facts that came out during the trial.

Which is why I BBC World news at least it attempts to be impartial , even though
it allows people to speak who some would prefer shouldn't be able to express
their views. I'm hoping to get the 24hour version soon.

Both Fox and CNN are anything but impartial and are becoming the TV equivalents
of the supermarket tabloids.

Like Neil said, it's old news.  ABC did this many years ago.  And as I thought, 
no body really cares about not being able to wear a lapel pin...if Barbara 
Walters doesn't like it then she can probably get a job for NBC, CBS, FOX or 
some other network.

Since ABC cannot forbid them from wearing any religious lapel pin, I guess they 
focused on something they can do under our constituion.

to me, it is the fact that abc news is making a "policy" of this, in a 
published format. no, we as a people should not remain quiet.  "all that is 
needed for evil to prevail, is for good men and woment to do nothing."

my allegiance is to our constitution, not the administration. politics affect 
me, but do not drive me or my choice of profession.

this IS the United States of America. not the Socialized States of America. 
The current path of our esteemed leaders seems to be far less than transparent 
and open, as promised...figuring out that you can't pull troops out of a war 
zone nearly as quickly or cleanly as you state it during campaign 
speeches..cant garner the support of industries unless you nationalize them, 
first.

the time for sitting and watching the news needs to be overwith.  a letter 
writing campaign needs to be instituted to let our leaders know how much we 
disagree with them on matters and how much we agree with them on other matters.

when we have a leader who's first remarks about a state that actually enforces 
the FEDERAL immigration law, saying that it is misguided and illegal, without 
ever having read the law, and his homeland security chief and chief counsel 
condemn the law and then having to admit under oath that they never read the 
law in the first place is far more than indicative that all they are looking 
for is a voting block.

in california, it is against state law to request an I.D. to cast a state, 
local or federal vote. all you have to do is provide an address.  there is no 
centralized list of registered voters.

when states condemn other states for enacting laws that follow federal 
guidelines, and then publish papers to indoctrinate school-age children that 
the legally voted on law is "un-American" and that to order boycotts of that 
state, when they impose their own "state laws" that legalize marijuana, 
provide sanctuary cities (AGAINST FEDERAL LAW) and such, merely breaks down 
the fabric of society by creating chaos.

-sarge

neilrh 
I agree.  At the same time I would disagree that most would notice someone 
wearing or not wearing a lapel pin since virtually everyone wears one or more 
lapel pins.  There are so many of those colored ribbon lapel pins these days 
and so many other pins that I stopped paying attention to them years ago (maybe 
I am the only one who no longer notices what pins someone is/is not wearing).

Disagreements are healthy if we all remember that we're all different.  
Disagreements is how we learn about other cultures and beliefs and how 
we "should" learn to be sensitive and understanding.

But you are right that most people have no tolerance for anyone that is just 
slightly different than themselves.  They can't understand why their neighbor 
from Spain, Mexico, Cuba, or wherever has every bit as much right to be here 
as they are.

The reason that seems to be touted by the news agencies is that people would 
see some wearing a lapel and others not, and maybe incorrectly deduce that 
those not wearing them were less patriotic.  But as you say, it may be safer 
for a foreign correspondent to not wear the lapel due to local feelings about 
the US.

But then also the US "news" is not news it's entertainment.  It's a method to 
sell advertising and make money.  Living in the UK during the 80's, there was 
NEVER a time that BBC news would tell you what was going to be on tomorrows 
broadcast.  It was news fact of the day, with maybe a light puff piece at the 
end of the show.  Breaking news was a 3min segment about some critical event, 
with a "we'll bring you more at our regular news broadcast at 1pm, we now 
return you to your regularly scheduled show".  No pretty blonde standing in 
front of a cloud of smoke filling airtime on speculation and opinion, or 
asking inane questions like "how does it feel to have your house blown up in a 
gas explosion".

Just my opinion, but we better stick to tech.  This kind of stuff will only lead
to disagreements.



"When the rest of the facts came out we found out that this happened on Cinco de
Mayo and these boys were not being punished for loving their country and being
patriotic, they were really being punished for their attitude towards their
Hispanic classmates."

"At different times when our government is meddling in other country's affairs
or passing legislation that seems to “attack” foreign nationals rights and
cultures I can see where it may be a little insensitive to be “more patriotic”
than we are any other time during the year."

I have to say that it's been years since most news agencies have reported only 
the facts and remain "NEUTRAL".  Many have replaced reporting just the facts 
with voicing their opinions or mixing some of the facts in with their opinions.

I would guess that the intent is to protect their reporters who are going 
outside of the country (where Americans are hated) to report on stories.  Plus, 
it is important for American reports to remain neutral...but we all know this 
doesn't happen and not wearing some lapel pin is not going to change that.

<WE ARE SLOWLY LOSING EVERYTHING OUR COUNTRY STANDS FOR AND EVERYTHING OUR MEN 
AND WOMEN FOUGHT AND DIED TO PRESERVE!>  This has been going on as far back as 
I can remember.  From what I remember as a child, not very many spoke out in 
support for the Bible when our government banned it from public schools, not 
much noice against the Patriot Act that attacks our freedom, and the new 
Healthcare will most likely also strip some of what men and women have fought 
to preserve.  This is NOT the same country it use to be and I doubt anyone is 
going to really care about some lapel pin.  

Maybe the feeling is "how can we have loyalty to a country that doesn't return 
the favor".  Perhaps the person with ABC that banned the pins doesn't have the 
same "love" for this country as most do.  I don't see this as being any worse 
than some of the unpatriotic things that happen in our nation's capital and in 
state capitals almost every day.

Did you hear about the boys in a highschool that were punished for wearing 
shirts with the American flag?  This was how the new initially reported this 
story.  When the rest of the facts came out we found out that this happened on 
Cinco de Mayo and these boys were not being punished for loving their country 
and being patriotic, they were really being punished for their attitude towards 
their Hispanic classmates.  This country is built on so many different 
cultures...Hispanic, Jewish, Asian, Middle Eastern and even Russian.  At 
different times when our government is meddling in other country's affairs or 
passing legislation that seems to “attack” foreign nationals rights and 
cultures I can see where it may be a little insensitive to be “more patriotic” 
than we are any other time during the year.

Not sure why the lapel pins were really banned, just trying to remain neutral. 

My opinion is that we need to be more patriotic, but we also need to be more 
sensitive to our neighbors and their feelings when this country that we all 
share seems to, at times, single them out and attack their rights or their 
culture.

Old news.  ABC has had this practice for decades before 9/11/2001.  And the 
first email report of this occurred in Oct 2001.

 I think its time to buy a bunch of American Flag lapel pins and wear them 
proudly to show what patriotism really means.  As far as ABC News, well, 
there's a whole lot of other news broadcasts to watch who just as bad a job of 
reporting the facts.

ABC NEWS BANS FLAG LAPEL PINS    
 
Barbara Walters said that this was going to hurt ABC bad.  As you know she 
works for ABC .

ABC NEWS BANS FLAG LAPEL PINS! 
YESTERDAY THE BRASS AT ABC NEWS ISSUED ORDERS FORBIDDING REPORTERS TO WEAR 
LAPEL PIN AMERICAN FLAGS OR OTHER PATRIOTIC INSIGNIA.  THEIR REASONING WAS 
THAT ABC SHOULD REMAIN NEUTRAL ABOUT 'CAUSES'. 
SINCE WHEN IS SUPPORT FOR PREVENTING DEATH AND DESTRUCTION SOME SORT OF 
A 'CAUSE'?  SINCE WHEN IS PATRIOTISM TO BE DISCOURAGED? 
I URGE YOU TO BOYCOTT ABC AND ITS SPONSORS AND AFFILIATES.  WE ARE SLOWLY 
LOSING EVERYTHING OUR COUNTRY STANDS FOR AND EVERYTHING OUR MEN AND WOMEN 
FOUGHT AND DIED TO PRESERVE! 
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO AS MANY AS YOU CAN.  

 THIS HAS BEEN VERIFIED THROUGH:  

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/abcflag.htm
THIS ONE NEEDS TO BE CIRCULATED...QUICKLY