Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Ronald Swaren
Recent Activity
-
Ronald commented on the article |"According to the police department, the number of violent crimes in the Phoenix area is also down: there were 11,194 violent crimes in 2006, 11,168 in 2007 and 10,466 in 2008. The number of robberies in 2006 was 4,363, spiked to 4,924 in 2007, then decreased again to 4,835 in 2008."
And still they complain abour Sheriff Joe. -
Ronald commented on the article |Mary, would you define what you mean by "Broken?" I've have seen this catch phrase used countless times. Congress and the Executive only allow so much funding for individal aspects of federal law enforcement. Does that equate to the law enforcement system being broken? As an anology--Sometimes after natural disasters, even in the US, there is widespread looting that is hard to control. This doesn't mean that the law or the government is "broken."
So please explain exactly what you mean by "Broken." Perhaps you could fill it in with details of what a better system would be.
So now the flood of illegal migrants have exceeded our budgeted capacities to deal with them. And for over thirty years their self appointed legal avocates have been trying to force US society to accept them, regardless of the downside costs. Trying to honor Cesar Chavez is an example; around here his little clique of activists won't let our city government rest until it has renamed some major thoroughfare for him.
To answer your question about how America succeeded due to immigration in the past is fairly simple. The US in the earlier years was a rustic, less civilized country than many European countries and therefore needed the skilled immigrants of the day to help improve it. The social safety net was mainly the family and religious charity so people were in a "do or die" situation. But advancing technology in the Western world has tended to eliminate unskilled positions. So until recently we preferred the skilled immigrants who could help develop the drudge-labor reducing mechanization.
With the explosion of social advocacy in the 1960's unskilled people --such as migrant farm workers---started finding some champions to help preserve their economic sustenance and avoid getting eliminated by advances in technology. ( see UFW/ CLRO v. UC Davis, 1979)Certainly not the first time in human history this has happened. Labor guilds and unions have resisted change in the past. Additionally the social safety net became more encompassing and generous and therefore more attractive to people from countries that had not benefited from the Western skilled migration.
As to the news articles maybe you should read them. Aircraft mechanics needs to be done right and the instructions are in English. Apparently they are finding that some aircraft mechanics have been assigned tasks they don't understand (because they can not read English) and the supervisory manpower is inadequate to check their work. Apparently this has been happening in Texas...of all places. So fly at your own risk, I guess. -
Ronald commented on the article |
Yes we do have such a successful melting pot---that's a good name for it.
Hundreds of aircraft mechanics improperly licensed
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/localnews/news8/stories/wfaa090423_mo_aircraft_.104d52899.html
News 8 Investigates: Airline mechanics who can't read
http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa090515-_lj_harris.7a4a7d4.html
Feel safer, now? -
Ronald commented on the article |
I thought "social change" was only necessary when all else has failed. After all, a lot of the social change initiated during the LBJ years of the Great Society had to be undone when Cllinton was in office. There is also considerable disagreement as to whether many of FDR's programs would have been necessary under a more enlightened monetary policy. After all, a ten year long depression was pretty extraordinary. OTOH, there were many valuable WPA programs that helped to modernize the US.
Some programs from the government are just ripe for abuse. In my long construction career I got used to hearing sarcasm when I suggested some frugality measures on a government project. People would say, "Ah, don't worry about it; the "government" has lots of money." Affirmative action and hiring by minority quota is another "corrective" measure that is riddled with abuse; people figure out all kinds of ways to find a loophole and get in on the "gravy train."
If LBJ's programs, i.e. The Great Society, (not all of which were bad, don't get me wrong) were due for an overhaul why should we start down that road again? What will we have? The Great Society II--the International Version? Having an expanding population through mass migration would do just that and really screw us up. We can help people so much more cost effectively in their own countries.
I do agree that we need a new source of exports. I think green energy products would be a perfect solution. It sure would be better than exporting nuclear technology to unstable areas of the world. I would rather see them have alternative energy sources in order to modernise their culture. In my participation in the UN Urban Forum I have been telling these developing countries that their urban planning should avoid the mistakes ( sprawl, dependence on autos) that have characterized US cities. The companies that are getting poised to manufacture, sell and export greeen energy technology have been chugging away for some time now, even in the bush years. I am curious as to what new policy Obama could come up with that would help them. If companies are healthy we need a much smaller social safety net, and that should be the underlying objective, not to make it unnecessarily bigger. -
Ronald commented on the article |"We should look at marriage as a business contract. You have 2 consenting adults who want to enter into this agreement, then let them."
The problem with that is that marriages are not just between two people. As soon as there are any offspring then the marriage affects them as well. We have decided long ago that we don't favor marriages being on an "easy come-easy go" format.
The tradition of spousal benefits could be traced back to a time when men worked dangerous occupations, were more prone to early death or disabling accidents, and the average elderly woman not well prepared to fend on her own. I know it is not operating precisely like that now, but that is the underlying idea. And many of those conditions still exist.Other marital benefits are geared towards preserving the advantages of very long lasting relations.
The sciences have been advancing over the last eight years as well. Some people are motivated by political purposes to misrepresent a lot of what has happened. I found recently that over the last several years there have been advances in transit technology that would be environmentally friendly---and cost far less to US taxpayers that many of the schemes arising now. In regards to Iraq and Afghanistan I think we should see greater religious control over the development of these new societies. Many Muslims are offfended by the intrusion of money hungry businesses that run counter to their values, like ponography shops, prostitution, or alcohol. -
Ronald commented on the article |
Certainly, Locke was one thread of the ideas in vogue when this country formed. There were a number of them. Once the founding fathers had committed to a military course they found that they had to make a number of practical compromises. Various social institutions were used as recruiting halls and it was necessary to make political payback to them.
There are many different views of what philosophies, beliefs or practical decisions formed the new nation. Different people have different opinions. -
Ronald commented on the article |
Why is it necesary to describe people who are against a radical transformation as being "bigots" or "haters?" You should respect their opinions and at least approach them with dignifies terms. After all you are asking for a change in something that is as old as mankind. If I proposed that we abolish the Social Security sytem, except for whatever benefits it has to me, wouldn't you consider that a radical change? Imagine the names that people would call me. But we may not even have a "right" to SS, if the system goes broke. You are asking for an expansion of financial benefits into your world that has not met our definitions before.
To most people you are asking for a right to something that doesn't exist. Marriage between people of the same sex is, to the prevailing trend, a contradiction in terms. Many people bond very closely with each other in emotional situations. Ever watch "A Band of Brothers?" -
Ronald commented on the article |$125,000 would be a pretty shrewd investment, IMO. Our entitlement spending is already soaring since an increasing portion of our retirement spending is now going to foreign retirees through the SSI funds.... and retired Americans are living longer and requiring more medical care. 2037 is the year the Social Security trust fund completely vanishes at the present rates. How much more burden can entitlement programs tolerate?
-
Ronald commented on the article |JizzleShizzle can most likely get a student visa and stay here all the way through med school. But I am not sure how she intends to pay for the education. It might be tricky getting any loan...I am not sure. Other foreign med students probably have parents with enough wealth to pay their way in the US.
IMO, the immigration system should be changed back to a skills based criteria---that is what a lot of other advanced countries have. The feelgood era of international philanthrophy has pressured Western countries into the family reunification system---so if we let low skilled people in, we will probably get their low skilled relations, too. Our industry should be elminating those low skilled vocations with technology, anyway. That has been the key to our progress in the past. Then people have to go and improve their skills if they want to compete. -
Ronald commented on the article |
It is the highly skilled immigrants, in many cases, that we would want here. Biochemists, physicians (well, maybe not lawyers, so much) and if we still had a skills based immigration system we would have that. That's the irony of our policy---which was shaped by immigration enthusisasts (like Sen Ted Kennedy) way back in the 1960's. Certain DREAM Act beneficiaries, for example, might be just the kind of people we would want here, but not without a change in policy..
What we have now, though, is the "Family Reunification Policy" which is way beyond any reasonable level. A naturalized citizen, or even some one with lawful permanent resident status, can start sponsoring even more distant relatives for immigration to the US. In some cases they may be able to sponsor members from 17 different families, after a few decades.
That is why so many people oppose an amnesty for 12-20 million illegals. IF they are given LPR it is likely they will start sponsoring other relatives. We already have lots of low skilled people sneaking in here. Do we want their cousins, aunts and uncles, too? Until this policy is changed back to a skills based system you will get a lot od resistance.
One more note: Our SSI program ( a social security payment for hardship cases) has also been discovered by the world. Watch middle aged immigrants and notice if they frequently have an elderly relative with them. Those are here to get in on the (2007) max, 631 single/934 couple a month SSI payment plus other benefits at the state level. And the word is spreading quickly. If an amnesty is granted to illegal immigrants we will start seeing their parents show up here, to claim their monthly prize.... as well as those of present legal immigrants. Unless the Family Reunification policy is changed. Good luck with that. And who is to stop an able bodied elderly SSI recipient from doing a little work on the side? Sweeping floors, washing windows, feeding the hogs. And don't forget medicare for the, either.
There is a smokescreen from immigrant advocates with a vested financial stake who don't like to talk about these things. The US welfare system is wide open for being used by people from around the world, and that is one of the chief reasons the American people know CIR is a real danger.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits