WHAAAA they are picking on me WHAAAAA just maybe yo done pi$$ed off to many people with your arrogant attitude

Once again we will be confronting this major dilemma on immigration reform, mainly because over many administrations immigration enforcement was never carried out. Over these decades lax policies have caused a massive overload of foreigners, who compromised themselves by not following the law, but are not entirely to blame? The awful fact is that the 1986 legislation was under funded and engineered for the particular business sector, unions, church, specialized attorneys and radical minority organizations by certain politicians. Since than the costs have been magnified, parallel to the–TRILLIONS–spent on nation building wars. At least 20 million illegal immigrants now reside in America, and decades of neglect, has swollen the numbers that in future years will undoubtedly cause irreversible overpopulation as analyzed by the US Census Bureau?

Trying to deport so many people is a possibility and a very expensive proposition. But their is another avenue that could be used, with equal success and not costing anywhere near using a forced deportation? We must demand from our rogue lawmakers in Washington to introduce a mandated, funded E-Verify? We know it works well because Special interest groups have used their influence to derail it. In the courts they have resuscitated racial profiling, including that it was faulty in its operation. The cure is simple–plaintiffs should go to the local Social Security office for straightening out irregularities. Until now we didn’t realize its power to perform and remove illegal immigrants from the work floor and therefore our government should make it available to every employer under the penalty of fines and prison. BEFORE ANY NEW WORKER IS HIRED, THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN AN E-VERIFICATION FORM WARNING THEM OF USING BOGUS ID AND A LEGAL FORM TO SIGN UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY IN MAJOR FOREIGN LANGUAGES. EACH BUSINESS MUST BE MANDATED TO DISPLAY AN E-VERIFY NOTICE. THEIR SHOULD BE A REWARD TO WORKERS, WHO CORRECTLY REPORTS ILLEGAL LABOR ACTIVITY TO ICE.

Democratic leadership made a fatal error, as it had already been funded for months to come E-Verify. The public eye and anti-illegal immigration groups became instantly aware of its special use. An outcry to Washington caused a re-emergence of this utility and now is firmly placed as a workable tool. Further innovations and technical progress–MUST–be made available and reasonable appropriations to modify its accessibility for the most fundamental PC operative? As time goes by, as all new computer programs bugs and errors will be removed and new versions will appear. A few Eastern states have made it fully functioning, while rebel states as California–a Sanctuary illegal immigrant state–is defying its use. Through voluntary now, over time it could cause mass evacuation of illegal labor from the workplace as by “Attrition”. Millions will surely give up as employers will live under a dark cloud of penalties and return slowly to their home country.

The 1986 (IRCA) immigration act is very potent and is currently under attack by unions, ACLU, US Chamber of Commerce, as is E-Verify, 287 G, the border fence and anything that smells of enforcement. Corporate entities–COMMAND–unparalleled cheap labor with no restriction, which has been honored by certain unethical politicians who do not represent the majority of the jobless public. Years of inactivity by unethical politicians caused the immigration mess in the first place. So the old adage stands its ground even today, “You made this bed, so now you have to sleep in it”? President Obama is going to try and insist on pushing through another immigration reform, but we cannot let this happen. He should build on the 1986 immigration reform, add amendments and stop the OVERPOPULATION of this country. Do the calculations yourselves of the trillions of dollars used–OVER THE YEARS–to cater to foreign national workers, their families in education, hospitals and the penal environment.

Speed up a–POINTS SYSTEM–for top of the pinnacle highly skilled workers, but no more hosting millions of indigent foreign labor and families, who become public welfare charges. We must assure that all American workers are gainfully employed, not individuals who have no right to be in our country? It makes me sick to see veterans of Korea, Viet-Nam, the Gulf war walking the streets homeless, while illegal immigrants get gratification from employers and lawmakers. WE CANNOT NO LONGER SUPPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. OUR COUNTRY IS NEAR BANKRUPTCY. DEMAND E-VERIFY TO CHECK THE IMMIGRATION STATUS FOR EVERY WORKER IN THE US AT 202-224-3121. VOTERS SHOULD COMMEND NO MORE WEAKENING OF ANY LAWS INCLUDING 1986 (IRCA) IMMIGRATION CONTROL & REFORM ACT. JOIN NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIAL WATCH AND BE STUNNED HOW MILLIONS OF VOICES HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE.

What I don’t think we have enough of though, is pure agitation over these issues. Of course, how can people be agitated over this, when all they’re getting is green-shoot-gasms from the mainstream media.

But beyond all the dry numbers, there is the biggest unreported story of our time here. And the few people who do explain it, keep the indignation quite tempered. Well, I’m for letting the indignation out of the box.

I mean we are talking about the Chairman of the Federal Reserve here, essentially running up the stock market in what is no less than a Generational Ponzi Scheme. Borrowing money, no raping money, from future generations so that it can get shell-gamed into the market. And all as the centerpiece of what is really a psychological strategy more than an economic one.

That Bernanke would see the solution not in terms of the austerity that is needed to make structural changes, but as a Financial Puppet Show designed to manipulate the consumer into going deeper in debt, says oodles about this man. And indignation should be flowing and the harsh things should be getting said. I mean, the man really is a ponzi schemer. He should be called out as someone who saw absolutely none of this coming, and now his solutions are ponzi cover-ups.

I think many more exposes are needed on this, and we should not be afraid to use the required adjectives. Dangerous, is one that comes to mind. Can you imagine the scandal if a significant portion of TARP gets lost in the market. Bernanke is nothing less than dangerous.

Read “Bernanke’s Dark Kingdom.”

Abstract:

I am going to show here that central banks have excessive powers which are coherent neither with democratic principles nor with morality. Their existence can not be justified from a mathematical point of view.]

Because of the immediate dangers that are evoked in these lines I strongly suggest that you reproduce my deeds.

My Yield Curve.

__________

In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species.

But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building “forts”, farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what’s to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists!

It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though (“conveniently”) never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, “Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!”, at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.

It should also be obvious (but apparently isn’t) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how we learn to treat it. Remember, children don’t learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building “forts”, mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could.

On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: “Nature has been taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to take nature back.” Then he titles his next chapter “Where Will Future Stewards of Nature Come From?” Where indeed? While fishing may bring one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.) Mountain bikers claim that they are “nature-lovers” and are “just hikers on wheels”. But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos, it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to controlling their bike, or they will crash. Children initiated into mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. It’s not!

On page 184 Louv recommends that kids carry cell phones. First of all, cell phones transmit on essentially the same frequency as a microwave oven, and are therefore hazardous to one’s health –- especially for children, whose skulls are still relatively thin. Second, there is nothing that will spoil one’s experience of nature faster than something that reminds one of the city and the “civilized” world. The last thing one wants while enjoying nature is to be reminded of the world outside. Nothing will ruin a hike or a picnic faster than hearing a radio or the ring of a cell phone, or seeing a headset, cell phone, or mountain bike. I’ve been enjoying nature for over 60 years, and can’t remember a single time when I felt a need for any of these items.

It’s clear that we humans need to reduce our impacts on wildlife, if they, and hence we, are to survive. But it is repugnant and arguably inhumane to restrict human access to nature. Therefore, we need to practice minimal-impact recreation (i.e., hiking only), and leave our technology (if we need it at all!) at home. In other words, we need to decrease the quantity of contact with nature, and increase the quality.

References:

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House, 1981.

Errington, Paul L., A Question of Values. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1987.

Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier — An Ecological History of North America and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press, 2001.

Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books, 1991.

Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, 1995.

Louv, Richard, Last Child in the Woods — Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2005.

Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, California, 1994.

Reed, Sarah E. and Adina M. Merenlender, “Quiet, Nonconsumptive Recreation Reduces Protected Area Effectiveness”. Conservation Letters, 2008, 1–9.

Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1973.

Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ecocity3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sc8, and http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/goodall.

Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.

“The Wildlands Project”, Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic Society, 1994.

Wilson, Edward O., The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.