Immigration

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Maybe because the nations who are accused by virtually then[sic] entire world of unfair trading also have immigration problems?

Exactly one word too many: these are nations that have immigration, full stop. Now think why they do, and weep for the cause of Blame America First that you so madly, sickly, daily espouse, you idiot.

NoBoxes, welcome to the club of "I've taken tw's measure, and he sucks bong water and eats his dandruff," whose membership grows every time tw tries to pay attention to about anything. He can't copyedit and he's quite mad, though he can simulate a well-founded mentality on just enough occasions for people to take him seriously, for a moment or two. He has one redeeming social value -- he shows in detail how sick and wrong the Blame America First point of view is. In disagreeing with loonies like tw, we strengthen our patriotism and win the GWOT, not least to piss these fools off so bad they have to jump off bridges.

Tw, dear patriotism catalyzer, how do you type so much with one forefinger up your nose?

On a general note, what Mexico needs is an economy that resembles that of the United States, rather than a replication of feudal Spain. Make a good living and everything else pretty much falls into place, or at least you've got a menu of options.

[Ibby]

Hey, now tw's saying what i said from the start, to some extent...

Make it easier to be a LEGAL immigrant, and we wont have a problem with illegals.

Originally posted by tw
A dirty little secret. I also had those security clearances. So what? Does that make me a genius? Not for one minute. It just meant I was going stuff I don't talk about.

Really! In the US government system a person holds only one security clearance. It can be upgraded, downgraded, rescinded and reinstated. It can even have special billeting attached; but, a person holds only one security clearance.

In the US government system [which granted mine], a security clearance doesn't just mean that a person was doing stuff they don't talk about. It means that a person knows what others are doing; but, aren't talking about. It means a person can recognize open source information that's not in the best interest of the US government to talk about. Additionally, it means a person can access globally acquired information that simply isn't available from outside of official channels and know what's actually going on in the world when open source users don't.

In the US government system, a security clearance doesn't make a person a genius; however, it can enable access to information which can significantly expand the scope of a person's knowledge to the point that the person becomes a bona fide subject matter expert rather than just a self appointed one (an armchair quarterback so to speak).

The differences in our descriptions of what a security clearance means prompts these legitimate questions:

Which country's government granted you your security clearances?

What is the definition of the acronym DSAR in this context?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

Really! In the US government system a person holds only one security clearance. It can be upgraded, downgraded, rescinded and reinstated. It can even have special billeting attached; but, a person holds only one security clearance.

A distinction without a difference. You could just as easily say that a person only has one clearance at a time, and it is replaced or revoked.

[tw]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

In the US government system, a security clearance doesn't make a person a genius;

You would not even mention your security clearance which is necessary if that clearance was of a level that actually provided special information. Security clearance means nothing to immigration issues. Used as some inflated claim that somehow you have more knowledge? Bull. There is nothing about America's immigration problem that is top secret. Citing a security clearance to proclaim yourself more knowledgeable is a 'blow hard' effort to sound smart. The fact that you are even talking about your security clearance suggests how low that clearance really is.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

You would not even mention your security clearance which is necessary if that clearance was of a level that actually provided special information. . . Citing a security clearance to proclaim yourself more knowledgeable is a 'blow hard' effort to sound smart. The fact that you are even talking about your security clearance suggests how low that clearance really is.

Here is an example of tw's acute emotional immaturity, and I've slapped tw around on that before. This sort of belittlement tactic isn't too out of line for a fourteen-year-old, tw -- but it is altogether grotesque in a man of fifty. It's one of a fistful of reasons why you aren't respected. In fundamental ways, you have never become an adult. If your thinking's actually good enough, you need not bolster it with abusive language. Nor need you indulge in hysterics.

I agree with NoBoxes, though, in the effect on one's thinking that having held a clearance has, from my own experience in holding a very high-level clearance and some very close-held accesses. You have some notion of what may be happening behind the scenes, and it restrains any tendency to blow off.

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
What? Why you bastard, you killed Kenny, didn't you?

PS: It was self defense, he called me a bastard and the truth was killing me.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
A distinction without a difference. You could just as easily say that a person only has one clearance at a time, and it is replaced or revoked.

It's a distinction that I "could just as easily" have made to see if TW has held a security clearance with:

a. another government

b. more than one government

c. any non-government entities (e.g. privately issued corporate clearances).

Just because you don't recognize the "difference" these factors can make in assessing someone's credibility doesn't mean that everyone else has limited vision too.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

Just because you don't recognize the "difference" these factors can make in assessing someone's credibility doesn't mean that everyone else has limited vision too.

Don't assume my vision is more limited in that regard.

Originally Posted by TW
You would not even mention your security clearance which is necessary if that clearance was of a level that actually provided special information.

Actually, I used my own security clearance to demonstrate why people may believe that there is often more to important issues than your open source information can accurately represent.

Originally Posted by TW
Security clearance means nothing to immigration issues.

Not for you; because, regardless of security clearance, information access is granted on a need to know basis anyway. Security clearance can be very important to those who deal with tangent issues that affect immigration policy (whether you think those issues should affect immigration or not).

Originally Posted by TW
Used as some inflated claim that somehow you have more knowledge? Bull.

I've not made that claim for myself. I've not even stated a position on immigration.

Originally Posted by TW
There is nothing about America's immigration problem that is top secret.

You would have no way of knowing that and you likely never will. That was just another way of putting your previous statement "Security clearance means nothing to immigration issues." I'll indulge your redundancy and put my reply another way. There is significant restricted information regarding, at least, other issues that impact on immigration policy.

Originally Posted by TW
Citing a security clearance to proclaim yourself more knowledgeable is a 'blow hard' effort to sound smart.

I've made no such proclamation about myself. I do infer that people working from only open sources may not be as knowledgeable as they could; or, should be.

Originally Posted by TW
The fact that you are even talking about your security clearance suggests how low that clearance really is.

Your statement is absurd. The US President has unlimited security clearance and he flaunts it whenever he cites national security reasons for not giving the press/public requested information. There is no correlation between the topical discussion of security clearances and anyone's clearance level. Additionally, this was just another way of putting your previous statement "You would not even mention your security clearance which is necessary if that clearance was of a level that actually provided special information." See my reply to that.

PS: Two redundancies in the same paragraph! TW, I am disappointed. As entertainment goes, I had thought you were a class act. Now I'm getting bored. Please continue to provide quality entertainment, not quantity entertainment.

PPS: I had already classified your presentations as For Entertainment Use Only. I may have to assign the same classification to your integrity since you didn't answer either of the 2 questions I asked of you in a previous post.

[tw]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

Actually, I used my own security clearance to demonstrate why people may believe that there is often more to important issues than your open source information can accurately represent.

You have hyped a theoretical security clearance only to complain. If you have facts, then post them. If you have no facts, then stop whining. It's like listening to a child crying - not one useful fact posted.

[Ibby]

Attacking symptoms with a frontal assault will not be any more effective than a Great Wall in China.

Yeah, the wall only kept the mongols out for a few hundred years, not very successful at all huh?

Just sayin'...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Something tw is not yet aware of is that nothing done north of the Rio Grande is actually striking at the root of the problem: that Mexico's economy less resembles that of the United States than it does that of medieval Spain, whose own economic development was stunted by the Reconquista's centuries of warfare which absorbed energies that might otherwise have gone to developing and creating wealth, and whose development after 1492 was poisoned by such a flood of New World gold as to cause gold itself to suffer inflation, especially on the Iberian peninsula. Latin America's economies were all built on the Spanish model of great estates owned by the wealthy few and leaving practically the entire remainder of the population as landless tenant farmers and workers, poverty-stricken, with little stake in the economy and next to no incentive to improve or develop it, because their property rights such as they were were not secure, and they got no profit nor benefit from devising improvement. It is difficult to see how the Spanish colonists could have come up with a better economic model than the one they implemented, it being the only one these landholding, noble hidalgos had any experience of. It didn't help at all that the great majority of the Spanish colonists were either petty nobility or not so petty, would-be nobility and younger sons, and all trying to set themselves up as estateholders, all the while having very few people trying to get from Spain to the New World for the purpose of bettering themselves, such as the English-language colonies further north had.

Want our immigration problems to go away? Make a Mexican middle class you can see without a microscope. This is at least 99% of the problem. We ourselves have very little "part in creating the problem." It grew naturally from Mexico's five-century-long screwup.

Originally posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Here is an example of tw's acute emotional immaturity, and I've slapped tw around on that before. This sort of belittlement tactic isn't too out of line for a fourteen-year-old, tw -- but it is altogether grotesque in a man of fifty ...

I agree with NoBoxes, though, in the effect on one's thinking that having held a clearance has ... You have some notion of what may be happening behind the scenes, and it restrains any tendency to blow off.

Sound reasoning Urbane Guerrilla. Not only can you recognize propaganda embedded in a deluge of benign facts, you have also acquired useful character assessment skills. tw could pass as an intellectual high school or college student due to that apparent "emotional immaturity." (and tw's profile is skeletonized). This begs the question: is it immaturity; or, something else?

tw is not unlike many second worlders that I've met (I've met quite a few in my time, including the President of one Central American country). They have second world ethics. Among these ethics is that whenever one group has a problem, they instinctively look for another group to blame it on. Another second world ethic is that other groups alway owe your group something. Note tw's virtual motto: ask not what the Mexicans can do for themselves, ask what you can do for the Mexicans. I also found it interesting that in a thread about immigration, tw's focus is on Mexicans. tw isn't campaigning for other nationalities; or, the improvement of their homelands. This reflects yet another second world ethic: common ethnicity, nationality, religion ... etc. trumps common situation (like the American Revolutionaries had). This analogy could go on and on ...

Originally posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Something tw is not yet aware of is that nothing done north of the Rio Grande is actually striking at the root of the problem ... Latin America's economies were all built on the Spanish model of great estates owned by the wealthy few and leaving practically the entire remainder of the population as landless tenant farmers and workers, poverty-stricken, with little stake in the economy and next to no incentive to improve or develop it ...

Your analysis is roughly in line with Tonchi's. Besides working in Central America, I've written an area study on one Central American country and read US Government area study handbooks on others; also, Mexico. All of these sources support the conclusion that there is little to be gained by pouring resources into such countries until they achieve more significant internal reform.

Amusingly, tw still hasn't quite figured out that I never intended to engage in the immigration debate. I recognized early on that tw is a fanatic on this subject who is simply proselytizing in the Cellar. My only purpose was to moderate tw's definitiveness so that other Cellarites would be aware of tw's use of propaganda technique.

Well, thank you for your insight Urbane Guerrilla. While I haven't been here long enough to make a definitive diagnosis of tw, I'm hoping that rehabilitation will be somewhere in the treatment plan. The prognosis is guarded.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Urbane Guerrilla
I've slapped tw around on that before.

No, the only thing you've slapped is your keyboard. Sitting there basking in your own witty repartee doesn't make you any more credible to the reader.

Originally posted by NoBoxes
Besides working in Central America, I've written an area study on one Central American country and read US Government area study handbooks on others; also, Mexico. All of these sources support the conclusion that there is little to be gained by pouring resources into such countries until they achieve more significant internal reform.

You draw on your opinion and the opinion of US government experts on Latin America for your conclusions. We the readers, have no basis to judge your opinion and the government experts on Latin America have been, historically, obscenely wrong.

TW, long winded and abrasive, at least cites his sources and gives the reasoning behind his views, beyond opinion. I don't believe he was advocating dumping resources into Latin America, only leveling the playing field so they can compete with us(US). I don't agree we have the responsibility to help them compete against us but that's just my opinion.
I do respect the fact that he never claims, Well, trust me, because I know shit you don't.