(Personally, I think that just about everyone is racist. It's just a matter of how much or how little, each of us has rummaging around inside of us, or in some cases, bursting out.) I have no reason to think that Mike is any more racist than ANY typical American. (And it may well be that he is less so.) But just, hypothetically speaking, if he were one of the most racist, white supremacist, card-carrying KKK, Nazi wannabes, around... would that negate the existence of some of the problems that he brings up?I guess your point is that whatever Mike thinks, that doesn't change the circumstances. But I label him as racist because I don't see people coming to this country to work and improve themselves is a problem. If anything they are an asset. They don't "come here to have babies" so they can take from us, that's a racist statement if I ever heard one. Putting charges of racism aside, and putting aside the intentions of illegal immigrants (since we can only assume intentions), illegal immigrants don’t typically make a lot of money. When there are children involved that need services, it is simply a fact that they sometimes need services that cost taxpayer money. e.g., I worked in a public agency for early childhood intervention for a few years, (and this was in Texas). We provided free services for families whose income was below a certain level. It was not unusual for me to have clients that were illegal aliens. We didn’t ask, as we weren’t required to, and obviously, we wanted to help young children who needed help. When no adult in the family or friend of the family could act as an interpreter, we would have to arrange for one. This in itself, of course, was extra cost. But the interpreting, itself, essentially doubled the time needed to provide the services. Taking care of illegals is a whole industry for the Catholic Church in the farming areas of the country. The Church helps with all kinds of matters from buying a car, doing taxes and dealing with state and federal programs like you were talking about. All the illegals I worked with were well paid. I don’t remember anyone making minimum wage. Starting wage was about 12 plus housing. Sometimes room and board. If you were a boss, matriarch or patriarch 50K or more was paid. Sounds like California is the place to be, if you are an illegal alien. I don't think that they are generally getting such a good deal in most other states.
... Yea, but Trump at least has balls to tackle the real major issues that no other politician will touch. Maybe not as big of balls as Hillary’s, she legally steals and lies better than all the other politicians, then tells us what a good job she is doing and we should make her president.For sure, Trump has no traditional political filter. I can see how many people view that characteristic with admiration. But to say that he is tackling "the real major issues"... is a HUGE stretch. Him suggesting that he will solve illegal immigration problems by building a great Great Wall (that's what he said a "great Great Wall") and then have Mexico pay for it. I wouldn't call that tackling a real issue. I would call it "spouting off a bullshit sound-bite". He says he will solve all sorts of international issues, simply by being a GREAT negotiator (especially in comparison to everyone else who he says are TERRIBLE negotiators). Again, that's not "tackling a real major issue", it's spouting off an easy bullshit answer that is attractive to persons who want to hear easy simple fixes to complex problems. He, conveniently, can afford to deride other politicians for their reliance on donor money, when, ironically much of his own wealth, that can keep him in the race is a product of him, historically, consistently donating to other politicians. Hillary has a reputation for being sneakier and more manipulative than other politicians. I would say that the reputation is more due to her being constantly, and persistently, and relentlessly, accused by her opponents of being so. But even if the reputation were true I would suggest that it makes her more, rather than less, qualified to be POTUS, because I believe her heart is in the right place on most of the "real major issues". Who knows where Trump's heart is? He has changed his stance on healthcare, for instance - 180 degrees since 2000. He was pro-choice. He is now pro-life. Who knows what his real ideology is, or if he even has one, other than - do and say what works best for Trump, at any given moment. He is now spouting off many of the same deceptive Republican bullshit that they all do. "Obama is a dummy." "Hillary is a criminal." "The Iran Nuke deal is a disaster." For Jeebus sake! Trump was one of the original most relentless of the "Birthers". And he still won't admit that he was wrong in claiming that Obama is not a citizen of the US! Of course. Political promises are just to please the polls. And I never for one second believed a word Trump said about the wall. Just more political BS. I am afraid Hillary wants in office for her legacy whereas Trump really does want to fix the country. Hillary will have an army of people she will have to make wealthy, whereas Trump will run the country like a business. Now if Hillary could run the country like the Romans, then her manipulative skill would be of value. But I don’t think her and Bill together are that skilled. The question to be answered is at the end of the term. Who will have moved the country closer to becoming a police state with a class system? And I feel that would be Hillary. Or another way of putting it is. The main job of the president is not to make laws and policies. It is to protect the constitution and the rights of the people. We now have so many laws and regulations that no one is even able to count them. I am afraid Hillary will just add more laws and more regulations and create thousands of jobs in the legal and court systems. And cause our taxes to increase.
Sounds like California is the place to be, if you are an illegal alien. I don't think that they are generally getting such a good deal in most other states.The workers I had worked for industrial dairies in Washington, Oregon, California, Utah, Idaho and Arizona. Dairies paid a lot more than field work. Dairies operated 24/7 and dealt with live animals on strict timetables. California was the only state the workers were unionized in the dairies. I did a survey at dairy conventions. And I ask the question. Of all the headaches of operating your dairy, what percentage would you contribute to labor? Most answers were 100% and no answer was below 90%. My task was simple. To reduce the percentage of headaches caused by labor and reduce the costs and liability of employees. To do this I first had to learn all about the problems of the employees. If the employees are not happy, you are going to have problems.
Saying you care about English speaking people over Spanish speaking, that's racist. Making up statistics like 60% of all babies born are from Mexico, racist. Why should I even be talking to someone who says "been coming to have their babies"? People come here from other countries to work. Aren't you an immigrant?Saying you care about English speaking people over Spanish speaking, that's racist. I am talking education here, please stay on the subject. I said students in the Chula Vista high school were not getting the education his parents are being taxed for because of the Spanish speaking kids coming from Mexico. You entirely miss the point. Yes, I do care about Americans over foreigners. That is not being racist. That is being patriotic. Making up statistics like 60% of all babies born are from Mexico, racist. You better do your research. One hospital said that almost all if its emergency room babies were from Mexico. In 2013 alone there were more than 300 Mexican babies born in San Diego with AIDS alone. This is a real big issue in boarder towns. People come here from other countries to work. That is true for the bulk of the people. But if you been watching the news this last year. There was a major problem with children coming here to get citizenship. They were not coming here to work. They were given attorneys, medical and other benefits by our government. We have no end to the money supply for these type of issues. But let's cut Soc. Sec. because there is no money or to reimburse the states for the costs of these actions. What would you do with them?
... Yea, but Trump at least has balls to tackle the real major issues that no other politician will touch. Maybe not as big of balls as Hillary’s, she legally steals and lies better than all the other politicians, then tells us what a good job she is doing and we should make her president.For sure, Trump has no traditional political filter. I can see how many people view that characteristic with admiration. But to say that he is tackling "the real major issues"... is a HUGE stretch. Him suggesting that he will solve illegal immigration problems by building a great Great Wall (that's what he said a "great Great Wall") and then have Mexico pay for it. I wouldn't call that tackling a real issue. I would call it "spouting off a bullshit sound-bite". He says he will solve all sorts of international issues, simply by being a GREAT negotiator (especially in comparison to everyone else who he says are TERRIBLE negotiators). Again, that's not "tackling a real major issue", it's spouting off an easy bullshit answer that is attractive to persons who want to hear easy simple fixes to complex problems. He, conveniently, can afford to deride other politicians for their reliance on donor money, when, ironically much of his own wealth, that can keep him in the race is a product of him, historically, consistently donating to other politicians. Hillary has a reputation for being sneakier and more manipulative than other politicians. I would say that the reputation is more due to her being constantly, and persistently, and relentlessly, accused by her opponents of being so. But even if the reputation were true I would suggest that it makes her more, rather than less, qualified to be POTUS, because I believe her heart is in the right place on most of the "real major issues". Who knows where Trump's heart is? He has changed his stance on healthcare, for instance - 180 degrees since 2000. He was pro-choice. He is now pro-life. Who knows what his real ideology is, or if he even has one, other than - do and say what works best for Trump, at any given moment. He is now spouting off many of the same deceptive Republican bullshit that they all do. "Obama is a dummy." "Hillary is a criminal." "The Iran Nuke deal is a disaster." For Jeebus sake! Trump was one of the original most relentless of the "Birthers". And he still won't admit that he was wrong in claiming that Obama is not a citizen of the US! Of course. Political promises are just to please the polls. And I never for one second believed a word Trump said about the wall. Just more political BS. I am afraid Hillary wants in office for her legacy whereas Trump really does want to fix the country. Hillary will have an army of people she will have to make wealthy, whereas Trump will run the country like a business. Now if Hillary could run the country like the Romans, then her manipulative skill would be of value. But I don’t think her and Bill together are that skilled. The question to be answered is at the end of the term. Who will have moved the country closer to becoming a police state with a class system? And I feel that would be Hillary. Or another way of putting it is. The main job of the president is not to make laws and policies. It is to protect the constitution and the rights of the people. We now have so many laws and regulations that no one is even able to count them. I am afraid Hillary will just add more laws and more regulations and create thousands of jobs in the legal and court systems. And cause our taxes to increase. A president cannot make laws. A president has no power over taxes. The legislature does that. Have you never heard of separation of powers?
A president cannot make laws. A president has no power over taxes. The legislature does that. Have you never heard of separation of powers?I think that is an item being debated. The president is in control of many departments. The departments make hundreds of regulations. The question is, are some of these regulations the same as new laws? I think this needs to be answered by the Supreme Court. Can you tell the difference between a law and a regulation? At least with the law you have a chance in court.
A president cannot make laws. A president has no power over taxes. The legislature does that. Have you never heard of separation of powers?I think that is an item being debated. The president is in control of many departments. The departments make hundreds of regulations. The question is, are some of these regulations the same as new laws? I think this needs to be answered by the Supreme Court. Can you tell the difference between a law and a regulation? At least with the law you have a chance in court.The courts overturn regulations all the time. Here's a recent example of them doing just that : http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/246423-supreme-court-overturns-epa-air-pollution-rule
A president cannot make laws. A president has no power over taxes. The legislature does that. Have you never heard of separation of powers?I think that is an item being debated. The president is in control of many departments. The departments make hundreds of regulations. The question is, are some of these regulations the same as new laws? I think this needs to be answered by the Supreme Court. Can you tell the difference between a law and a regulation? At least with the law you have a chance in court. I'm not going to respond to a bunch of conservative talking points backed up by made up statistics.
A president cannot make laws. A president has no power over taxes. The legislature does that. Have you never heard of separation of powers?I think that is an item being debated. The president is in control of many departments. The departments make hundreds of regulations. The question is, are some of these regulations the same as new laws? I think this needs to be answered by the Supreme Court. Can you tell the difference between a law and a regulation? At least with the law you have a chance in court.The courts overturn regulations all the time. Here's a recent example of them doing just that : http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/246423-supreme-court-overturns-epa-air-pollution-rule Great example.The big corporations and states use to be able to grab their congressman and go to the department and straighten out a regulation problem. The congressmen would tell the departments that making the laws was his job and not the job of the departments. Now the departments are so big and powerful that method does not always work.
Saying you care about English speaking people over Spanish speaking, that's racist. Making up statistics like 60% of all babies born are from Mexico, racist. Why should I even be talking to someone who says "been coming to have their babies"? People come here from other countries to work. Aren't you an immigrant?Saying you care about English speaking people over Spanish speaking, that's racist. I am talking education here, please stay on the subject. I said students in the Chula Vista high school were not getting the education his parents are being taxed for because of the Spanish speaking kids coming from Mexico. You entirely miss the point. Yes, I do care about Americans over foreigners. That is not being racist. That is being patriotic. Making up statistics like 60% of all babies born are from Mexico, racist. You better do your research. One hospital said that almost all if its emergency room babies were from Mexico. In 2013 alone there were more than 300 Mexican babies born in San Diego with AIDS alone. This is a real big issue in boarder towns. People come here from other countries to work. That is true for the bulk of the people. But if you been watching the news this last year. There was a major problem with children coming here to get citizenship. They were not coming here to work. They were given attorneys, medical and other benefits by our government. We have no end to the money supply for these type of issues. But let's cut Soc. Sec. because there is no money or to reimburse the states for the costs of these actions. What would you do with them? I am not sure I understand your question Lois. But l will take a shot. The question is a question of citizenship and reciprocity agreements. We are a country of laws and we have to follow the laws. So until congress changes the laws anyone born on U.S. soil are citizens and can get benefits. Now today, that is including anyone who is not born on U.S. soil, but is a child and can reach the U.S. What the issue is, these federal benefits and federal regulations are costing some states and city tax payers dearly. And these American tax payers say they would like to see the federal government pay the costs and not them. In other words, the government should not enforce unfunded laws on local cities and states to deal with undocumented people. What to do with the people. If they come to work, they should use the visa worker program. If they come for free medical and benefits, send them home. I know in some trades the visa program is not working properly. The workers that come here to work don’t seem to have the same problems as those who come here to live. It takes up to two weeks for the federal government to deport a worker to his country. But the worker is back to work here in the states in four days after getting released in his home country.
And these American tax payers say they would like to see the federal government pay the costs and not them. In other words, the government should not enforce unfunded laws on local cities and states to deal with undocumented people.That's what "sanctuary cities" are doing. They are saying they aren't going to the job of the feds. They aren't going to actively seek out and enforce immigration laws. If it comes up as part of some investigation, sure, they'll follow or use the law as best fits the situation. But they are letting the federal gov't do their job, and they'll do the local job. That's what you're saying here, but you use this "sanctuary" term as if a bunch of liberals are protecting illegals. There's no point in having a discussion with someone who uses words so loosely.
And these American tax payers say they would like to see the federal government pay the costs and not them. In other words, the government should not enforce unfunded laws on local cities and states to deal with undocumented people.That's what "sanctuary cities" are doing. They are saying they aren't going to the job of the feds. They aren't going to actively seek out and enforce immigration laws. If it comes up as part of some investigation, sure, they'll follow or use the law as best fits the situation. But they are letting the federal gov't do their job, and they'll do the local job. That's what you're saying here, but you use this "sanctuary" term as if a bunch of liberals are protecting illegals. There's no point in having a discussion with someone who uses words so loosely. Sorry Lausten if you read my posting that way. I agree with the sanctuary cities tactics. What was in the news lately was the killing of citizens by illegals that had been released from jail and the federal government putting the blame on the cities for not following the federal (guidelines, procedures or requests.) in holding these illegals in jail until the federal government got around to the deporting process. What the papers did not explain was the cities were doing nothing wrong. Because the federal government was not paying for the services they were requesting. California did take a step in the right direction. California allowed drivers licenses for illegals. Illegals not being able to get a driver’s license had become a major liability for the farmers. Moving protein and animals from fields to feed operations a lot of times required travel on state right aways. The insurance companies were requiring licensed drivers.
California did take a step in the right direction. California allowed drivers licenses for illegals. Illegals not being able to get a driver’s license had become a major liability for the farmers. Moving protein and animals from fields to feed operations a lot of times required travel on state right aways. The insurance companies were requiring licensed drivers.Sorry I misinterpreted that, but it's a term that is designed to mean something that isn't true, and you used it without qualification. So now you're saying, let them have driver's licenses because that's good for business, but don't let them send their kids to schools or use a hospital? Am I getting that right? Or is there some other "problem" you are talking about with High Schools and health care?
California did take a step in the right direction. California allowed drivers licenses for illegals. Illegals not being able to get a driver’s license had become a major liability for the farmers. Moving protein and animals from fields to feed operations a lot of times required travel on state right aways. The insurance companies were requiring licensed drivers.Sorry I misinterpreted that, but it's a term that is designed to mean something that isn't true, and you used it without qualification. So now you're saying, let them have driver's licenses because that's good for business, but don't let them send their kids to schools or use a hospital? Am I getting that right? Or is there some other "problem" you are talking about with High Schools and health care? Government entitlements is the topic. And we are discussing two subjects. One, is who should have to pay for entitlements to illegals. And two, how illegals are affecting the schools and hospitals in border towns. I have pointed out that in the border towns that many of the Mexicans that come to use the schools and hospitals in the border towns are also U.S. citizens by birth. And they want their children to be U.S. citizens too. What you call dual citizenship or dual nationals. When the child is old enough to drive, they drive to school in the border town to get a high school diploma. That ups the chances of joining the U.S. military. Now on the subject of driver’s licenses. Yes that is good for the farmers. But it is going to turn out to be a total disaster for many industries and a loss of jobs for the U.S. work force overall. All of this has happened because Washington has sat on their fat asses for decades and worried more about the vote than the damage to America. Both the Republicans and Democrats are to blame. The people are now mad as hell and they don’t want to take it anymore. And Trump is the first of the presidential runners to acknowledge the problem in more than a BS political Washington way.
I’ve never heard anyone explain this situation by staying on one subject. First, you and Trump say they’re unemployed drug addicts using our free services, then later they’re taking our jobs. Either American business owners are stupid enough to hire pregnant meth heads, or Mexicans nationals are contributing to our economy. I believe it’s the latter, and that is how you provide services to your citizens (what you call entitlements), you keep the economy vibrant.
I agree it’s about votes, but I think for completely reasons than you do. Boehner briefly scolded his colleagues on pandering to a minority last year, but seems to have backed off on that.] But it’s hard to tell what you think because introduce a new sound bite every post with no explanation.
...Of course. Political promises are just to please the polls. And I never for one second believed a word Trump said about the wall. Just more political BS. I am afraid Hillary wants in office for her legacy whereas Trump really does want to fix the country. Hillary will have an army of people she will have to make wealthy, whereas Trump will run the country like a business. Now if Hillary could run the country like the Romans, then her manipulative skill would be of value. But I don’t think her and Bill together are that skilled. The question to be answered is at the end of the term. Who will have moved the country closer to becoming a police state with a class system? And I feel that would be Hillary.As far as my view of Hillary's underlying motivations vs. your view of Donald's underlying motivations, we only have what is in the public record to go on, and even with that, we are doing a lot of assuming. Your guess is that Donald "really wants to fix the country" (and by inference, Hillary does not "really want to fix the country"). Your guess is that Hillary's main objective in office will be to make "an army of people" (to whom she owes political favors) wealthy, while Donald will run the USA like his own personal corporation (but to the benefit of all). My guess is that Hillary has always been, ultimately, motivated to do things that "will fix the country" so to speak, and political power is the vehicle though which she has chosen to try to accomplish these things. As far as "skills in political manipulation", my guess is that Hillary is only a little above average among politicians, and that her reputation of being sneaky and manipulative is more a factor of one of the most concerted, relentless, long-lasting and persistent series of attacks, by her opponents on one individual. Bill's political skills, OTOH, are pretty well accepted. (It is weird, that it just came out that Bill may have been instrumental in getting Donald to run for President, but who knows what that is about.) But political manipulation is definitely a skill that can be important for a POTUS. (One weakness of Pres. Obama, I think, has been his below average ability to manipulate Congress. By contrast, for instance, LBJ was a master.) My guess is that Donald, being an egocentric, often pettily vindictive narcissist, would likely make a mess of things to rival the debacle of the last Republican Presidency. And I think that you are really stretching your guessing powers to say that Hillary will move us closer to a police state and a class system, than would Donald.
To deal with immigration problems, we need a comprehensive immigration plan/policy comprised of the considerations below (easy to say – hard to do).:
To deal with the problem primarily thru border control is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS. (I say as a general statement.) To be effective it would require something like a reverse Berlin Wall. Besides being insane, it would not be cost effective. In fact it would be a stupendous waste.
If we don’t want immigrants, we should not draw them in. (But we do, apparently, want some immigrants. For those, give them a quick, easy path to legal status and/or citizenship.) For the rest, PUNISH anyone who gives them a job. And don’t provide them social services. (This last one is a hard choice for us humanitarian types, but, I think, necessary. The ONLY social services for them, if necessary, should be ones that keep them alive and safe until they can be deported.)
For illegal immigrants who are here now (excluding refugees of violence), the ones who show good potential for being or becoming productive guest workers and/or citizens, give them a quick easy path to legal status/and/or citizenship. Deport all the rest.
For illegal immigrants who are fleeing violence, provide a refugee camp where they can stay until they wish to leave our country or until they can be deported safely, whichever comes first.
Make it clear and true that those who are exceptional and can contribute can get in legally and quickly. And that the rest will have little incentive to be here.
The vast bulk of our resources used to address immigration should be put toward getting the immigrants that we want, excluding the ones we don’t want, punishing persons who hire illegals, and making it clear to the world that this is how it’s going to be.
I’ve never heard anyone explain this situation by staying on one subject. First, you and Trump say they’re unemployed drug addicts using our free services, then later they’re taking our jobs. Either American business owners are stupid enough to hire pregnant meth heads, or Mexicans nationals are contributing to our economy. I believe it’s the latter, and that is how you provide services to your citizens (what you call entitlements), you keep the economy vibrant. I agree it’s about votes, but I think for completely reasons than you do. Boehner briefly scolded his colleagues on pandering to a minority last year, but seems to have backed off on that.] But it's hard to tell what you think because introduce a new sound bite every post with no explanation.I don’t know about drug addicts, I have never had to deal with those types of problems. I see the Mexican gang M13 is always in the news. In farming I ask all the clients to explain and describe to me what they considered the best workers. I wanted to make sure that I was taking the company in the right direction. The results surprised me and I had to change several company policies. It turned out the idea dairy worker was a person from another country. From the rural area and not from the big cities. Not speaking English and here in the United States less than two years. In other words, as the workers became Americanized, they were not as good workers. And you should be aware that the work they were doing we could not get many Americans to do. I don’t think the farm workers are a problem and are more of an asset to the United States. I think what Trump is talking about is more likely problems in Mexico’s second largest city. The Los Angeles area. And some of the border cities. The Los Angeles area includes illegals from all around the world, not just Mexico. I feel that my post are long so I don’t get into a lot of explanations. So I understand where you are coming from. On drivers licenses for instant. No, I am not for illegals having driver’s licenses. But I am also not for people driving without insurance and companies and business having to break the law in order to operate. So to have business operate more within the laws, driver’s licenses was a step in the right direction. Plus, it help push the federal government to get off their fat asses and do something about immigration. The trade agreement with Canada opened up the door for Canada truck drivers to work in the United States. Now we have a large number of cross country truck drivers from India and Pakistan. All with Canada drivers licenses. Some live in the trucks with their families. This will be nothing compared to the Mexicans illegals getting into the trucking industry. I think the video you posted shows John Boehner sees the problem with Washington better that any of us.
...Of course. Political promises are just to please the polls. And I never for one second believed a word Trump said about the wall. Just more political BS. I am afraid Hillary wants in office for her legacy whereas Trump really does want to fix the country. Hillary will have an army of people she will have to make wealthy, whereas Trump will run the country like a business. Now if Hillary could run the country like the Romans, then her manipulative skill would be of value. But I don’t think her and Bill together are that skilled. The question to be answered is at the end of the term. Who will have moved the country closer to becoming a police state with a class system? And I feel that would be Hillary.As far as my view of Hillary's underlying motivations vs. your view of Donald's underlying motivations, we only have what is in the public record to go on, and even with that, we are doing a lot of assuming. Your guess is that Donald "really wants to fix the country" (and by inference, Hillary does not "really want to fix the country"). Your guess is that Hillary's main objective in office will be to make "an army of people" (to whom she owes political favors) wealthy, while Donald will run the USA like his own personal corporation (but to the benefit of all). My guess is that Hillary has always been, ultimately, motivated to do things that "will fix the country" so to speak, and political power is the vehicle though which she has chosen to try to accomplish these things. As far as "skills in political manipulation", my guess is that Hillary is only a little above average among politicians, and that her reputation of being sneaky and manipulative is more a factor of one of the most concerted, relentless, long-lasting and persistent series of attacks, by her opponents on one individual. Bill's political skills, OTOH, are pretty well accepted. (It is weird, that it just came out that Bill may have been instrumental in getting Donald to run for President, but who knows what that is about.) But political manipulation is definitely a skill that can be important for a POTUS. (One weakness of Pres. Obama, I think, has been his below average ability to manipulate Congress. By contrast, for instance, LBJ was a master.) My guess is that Donald, being an egocentric, often pettily vindictive narcissist, would likely make a mess of things to rival the debacle of the last Republican Presidency. And I think that you are really stretching your guessing powers to say that Hillary will move us closer to a police state and a class system, than would Donald. It’s not that I have a lot of confidence and hope in Trump. It is that I am more willing to put my vote into an unknown and unproven person because of the track record of the other players. Reagan was not that good by himself. Reagan had smart friends and good advisors that were in private industry and not in the government. And he was able to make a difference.
I feel that my post are long so I don’t get into a lot of explanations. So I understand where you are coming from.Do you? The length of your posts is completely within your control. Just answer questions and takes points one at a time instead of introducing new data every time. Now you're saying it's not just Mexico, but you're the one who brought them up in the first place. I don't think it's a matter of you not having the time, or wanting to keep your posts short, I think it's a matter of you not understanding what you're talking about, so you just keep adding on new things as if they more evidence, like Pakistani truck drivers from Ontario. The problem is we have too many bigots in this country and they are holding us back from reforming our immigration laws.