Except how many of those pickers are U.S. Citizens, and how many are actually Mexicans, living in the U.S. illegally?
I don't know. I wasn't addressing that.
The point that I was addressing was the one which said if we got rid of all the foreign labor, then the price of oranges would rise to 3 for $20.
I pointed out fairly clearly that we could double or triple the current price paid for oranges from $0.70 per 90lb box to $2.10 per 90lb box. The price of oranges in the supermarket would barely budge while providing double and triple salary increases for the orange pickers, making those jobs attractive to American workers.
Certainly, employers don't have to make those increases now because the foreign labor is still present. But, as I said previously, that was not the point I was addressing.
What you are describing, in economic terms, is leakage.
In Keynesian economics, there is a model called the Injection-Leakage Model that describes the circular flow of production, income, and resources between producers and consumers within a national economy.
In short, you work for a business, which pays you for making goods or services. You then use your money to then buy from other businesses. There is a circular flow of money.
Investment, government purchases, and exports inject money into the system, making more money available for everyone in the economy. Savings, taxes, and money spent overseas come out in the form of leakage, reducing the amount of money in the system for everyone.
Offshoring is just another form of leakage. And no, it is not good.
Increasing the amount these workers make would not significantly effect prices. Doubling the rate of the 90 pound field box to $1.40 would increase the average worker's pay from $60 to $120 per day. Tripling the rate of the 90 pound field box to $2.10 would increase the average worker's pay from $60 to $180 per day. Neither increase would significantly increase the cost of individual oranges in the supermarket. Further, either increase would mean more Americans taking those jobs.
Do you really think that a wall is going to solve this problem???
As I said, we are now doing almost nothing, so putting up a fence is the first, most basic thing anyone can do to keep someone out. That can help close off one avenue of entry into the US used by a huge number of illegal immigrants. When that's done, we can focus on the next big problem. That may be the illegal overstay of visas or something else. But, sitting around and doing nothing only makes the problem worse.
I'm an illegal immigrant from Mexico (weird right....!)
With the huge amount of illegal immigrants, 57% of which are from Mexico, it isn't weird at all to find one. It is strange to find an illegal immigrant who can write English, owns a computer, has an internet connection, and posts on Slashdot. But then, statistically speaking, it's not improbable. Mexico does have the 15th biggest economy in the world. Certainly, they're doing some things right, even if they are major fuckups in other areas.
i didn't jump any wall I came here to the US legally with a tourist visa just as many people, even the immigration officer on the airport told me "Welcome to America"
The immigration officer welcomed you because you were a tourist at the time. You didn't become an illegal immigrant until you overstayed your visa. If that immigration officer saw you again today, he wouldn't be so nice.
the fact that all illegal immigrans jump the border it's not true.
I didn't say that all illegal immigrants jump the border. I said putting up a fence is a good first step, which it is.
Excuse me? In the US, the government decides the law based on input of American citizens. Foreign governments and foreign citizens certainly can give their input, but the we decide which of these inputs to accept. The United States is a sovereign nation, just like every other in the world. We make and enforce our own laws for our own benefit, thank you very much.
I miss the days when potential slashdotters would have argued something like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You need to keep reading to the 14th amendment: "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." All men may be created equal, but only if they're born here or go through the legal process can they be called citizens.
Yes, all men have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't give everyone the right to move to America.
They are hardworking people. They pay taxes (yes, even the undocumented ones).
It doesn't matter how hard someone works. It doesn't matter how much or how little someone pays in taxes. If they're here without going through the proper legal process, then they are here illegally. That makes them an illegal immigrant.
And no, I do not mean "undocumented" worker. These workers do have documentation - it's just forged. So, that makes them illegal on two counts: illegally entering the country and the use of forged documents. The use of forged documents is a felony.
These immigrants are certainly not criminals. The worst you can charge them with is a civil offense (though some bastards in Congress want to change that).
The instant they get a false ID and use that to get a job, then they have committed a felony.
And since when is a persons' economic benefit to you the primary definition of whether they are human beings?
Illegal immigrants are human beings. That alone doesn't give them a right to enter America.
Our immigration policies are out of whack, built by bigtos for a time long past. They do not serve the current needs of our country.
Our immigration laws are fine. But yes, our immigration policies are out of whack. Too many illegal immigrants are able to sneak across our border, circumventing the system.
If we allowed many more immigrants into this country (particularly from Central and South America) we would not see the undercutting of wages we are seeing now. Middle class workers are not losing jobs to immigrants.
Bullshit. Ever heard of supply and demand? If you increase the supply of labor, then the demand for that labor goes down. Wages decrease and the middle class is put out of work. Eventually, the only people who have jobs are those on the low end willing to work for almost nothing. That's what has happened for the last 20 years. That's why wages for janitors have plummeted down from 20 years ago. That's why wages for meat processors plummeted down from 20 years ago. You can look at industry after industry. In every case, wages went down when illegal immigrants started taking those jobs.
If all of the undocumented immigrants in this country were given legal immigration status those wages would rise.
For a short time, maybe. Then, we'd see a wave of new immigration coming to America that would push those wages even lower.
You have to decide whether you will support the inherent dignity of human beings or not. If someone wants to emmigrate to build a better life from his or her family, it is our responsibility to provide the opportunity.
That's a false dichotomy. I support the dignity of human beings. But, I do not support the open border policy you propose.
Our laws are here for the benefit of Americans, not for the people of other countries. And yes, that includes our immigration laws. From what I can see, unlimited immigration would dramatically hurt the average American. It would create a depression far, far worse than anything seen in the 1930s.
If you have smart, ambitious people living in shit on one side of that fence, and people living in prosperity on the other side of that fence, and you don't provide a reasonable way for those smart, ambitious people to cross over legally... well... what do you think is going to happen? What would you do in such a situation. You would find a way. That is what we're fighting against here, that is why we're losing
We're losing because we're doing almost nothing. Putting up a fence is the first, most basic thing anyone can do to keep someone out. Sure, people can hop the fence, but that takes time. And given enough time, that lets Immigration show up and capture them.
The US has entire networks of criminals set up to issue false documentation to illegal immigrants. They can come here, get illegal documents, get jobs, and live the American dream without anyone ever questioning who they really are. No, asking those kinds of questions is racist and xenophobic here in America.
Do you know what percentage of immigrants, documented or otherwise, are from Mexico?
The Pew Hispanic Center states that 57% of illegal aliens are of Mexican origin and about 75% are of Latin American origin as of March, 2004.
You want privilege, look to the Irish.
Interesting that you would bring up the Irish. When they immigrated en masse to the US, there were none of the anti-discrimination laws that exist today. The Irish were treated far worse than Mexicans are today.
Even so, the US is not facing a wave of Irish immigrants. No, we're facing a wave of immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Your argument there is an irrelevant red herring.
And yet you call risking your life, which people from all over central and South America do not just Mexicans, privilege?
The ability to immigrate here is set in American law. Those American laws are there of the American people, by the American people, for the American people - not the citizens of Mexico or any other country. So yes, it is a privilege for foreigners to immigrate here, not a right.
If US immigration laws cause problems for foreigners, then tough shit. Those laws aren't there for their benefit.
The American government is there of the people, by the people, for the people. The people referred to there are the citizens of the USA, not the citizens of Mexico or any other country. If US immigration laws cause problems for foreigners, then tough shit. Those laws aren't there for their benefit.
No, immigration laws are there for our benefit. Without them, our country would be flooded with immigrant labor overnight. That would cause a depression the likes of which would be far worse than what we saw in the 1930s. You want a job? Tough shit. Either Anil Mehta would take your high end job or Juan Carlos would take your low end job. You would have to go to the end of the food handout, you stupid American.
Sure, employers would love such a labor market. That doesn't mean we should give it to them.
The market tells us very clearly what that labor is worth, and trying to prevent people from entering the country to take that deal is an intervention in the market.
No, the intervention in the market comes from employers attempting to manipulate labor supply and demand by subverting our national sovereignty in the form of eliminating our immigration laws.
The US produces 8.1 million barrels of its own crude per day. It imports 55% of the oil it needs. Certainly, there would be a major hit to the average American lifestyle were we to lose all foreign sources of oil (including Mexico), but we could still survive.
Illegals as welfare leeches is a myth; in practice they tend to avoid contact with government as much as they can, and the upshot is that they pay far more in taxes than they recieve in benefits
Tell that to my Dad who works at a state hospital in El Paso. He constantly sees Mexican immigrants who readily confess that they are illegal. Most don't have insurance. Most don't pay their bills. Luckily, his hospital still has funds to operate, but several similar hospitals in southern California have been forced to shut down.
They have aid cars called down to the border on a regular basis. Mexico regularly dumps its sick and dying on our side of the border for us to treat and release. Mexico can't afford the treatment, so it's fine with them to dump their sick on us rich and greedy gringos to have us pay for it.
GP: "I'm not here to teach you. I'm here to provide the information you need for the exam. If you think you can pass the exam without listening to me, you're welcome to leave." This is exactly how schools should be run.
You: Wut? That right there is a good reason for why schools are failing at their job.
Actually, that attitude is the same as the one presented in college, where America is the best in the world.
And, that is the exact opposite of the attitude in high school and below, where America is failing.
Together, they prove the point that students need to be held accountable for learning the material themselves and not be coddled by teachers attempting to force-feed information on students who don't want to learn and don't want to even be there.
There's too much of a sense of entitlement in high school. Students and parents believe that attending school for four years is enough for a diploma, regardless of the amount and quality of work. I say fail the bad apples who refuse to learn in high school and maybe they'll start taking high school and learning seriously. Then, we'll see improvements in our schools.
The pardon was very unpopular politically. As a result, the Republicans got pounded in the midterm elections, losing 49 seats.
Yes, and as a result, Reagan was able to come in at a time when no one was talking about impeachment. Had a trial actually occurred over 4-5 years, it would still have been fresh in everyone's minds years after the end. The pardon instantly ended all of that. Sure, it might have been a hit in the short term, but it was their best choice for the long term.
Ford cleared it away with his pardon power: Shazam! - Instant 25% more time to spend on little things like...
Bullshit. The pardon was not done to give Ford time to work on other projects. The pardon was not done to "heal the nation" or other such nonsense. Nixon wanted off. And they all wanted to get the Republican party out of the spotlight. Ford traded Nixon the pardon for the presidency.
You: Weren't you just complaining about that in President Clinton's case? Why is it different for President Nixon?
You want to compare the two? Fine, I'm perfectly all right going there.
The difference between the two is that Clinton was brought to justice.
The difference is that Nixon actually broke laws that people care about and which affect the nation. The only law Clinton broke was lying about his own sex life.
The difference is that we spent half a decade investigating Clinton and spending $50 million to find out that he lied about his sex life. We didn't spend anywhere near that amount of time or money investigating Nixon.
The difference is that Nixon was far more dirty than Clinton ever was. Nixon brokered a deal with Ford to trade the presidency for a pardon.
There is also evidence that Ford traded Nixon a pardon for the presidency. That's obstruction of justice. It shouldn't have been done. It was against the law. And it was possibly an impeachable offense.
Richard Nixon as President was the Republican party. He was the head honcho, the main man. A pardon for him was also a pardon for the party, as I already explained.
Ford did what was best for the nation.
Hardly. He did what was best for the only man who elected him to the position, Richard Nixon, and their political party, the Republicans.
Your notion of a 4-5 year trial is dubious speculation and political pornography.
Not unlike what happened to Clinton during his 4-5 year, $50 million investigation which only determined that like a vast majority of Americans, he lied about sex.
Although it might have been personally satisfying and politically useful to some people to pursue Nixon, it would have continued to take up large amount of time for an uncertain result
Yes, that's called justice. It's not pretty and it can take time. Instead what we got was a mockery of justice that only proves well connected dirty Republicans are above the law.
As far as I'm concerned, Ford is an accomplice to Nixon's crimes by letting him go free. Ford does not deserve my sympathy nor respect. If there is a hell, he is certainly burning in it.
Ford was a crook. He was an accessory to Nixon's crime, preventing justice from prevailing. Ford hurt this country by letting everyone know loud and clear that the rich, powerful, and connected are above the law.
...our current regime doesn't count as a imperial Presidency if the voters explicitly endorse it by putting him back in office
Yeah, IF. With all the cries of vote tampering and vote fraud in every election since 2000, no one could say definitively that Bush actually won legitimately. We know he lost the popular vote in 2000. And even though he won in 2004, the exit polls predicted otherwise. There are millions of undocumentable votes in machines produced by companies that are severely partisan for the benefit of the Republican party. Yeah, the Democrats won in 2006, but that just shows the Republicans didn't make enough fraudulent votes.
Slashdot Mirror
Except how many of those pickers are U.S. Citizens, and how many are actually Mexicans, living in the U.S. illegally?
I don't know. I wasn't addressing that.
The point that I was addressing was the one which said if we got rid of all the foreign labor, then the price of oranges would rise to 3 for $20.
I pointed out fairly clearly that we could double or triple the current price paid for oranges from $0.70 per 90lb box to $2.10 per 90lb box. The price of oranges in the supermarket would barely budge while providing double and triple salary increases for the orange pickers, making those jobs attractive to American workers.
Certainly, employers don't have to make those increases now because the foreign labor is still present. But, as I said previously, that was not the point I was addressing.
What you are describing, in economic terms, is leakage.
In Keynesian economics, there is a model called the Injection-Leakage Model that describes the circular flow of production, income, and resources between producers and consumers within a national economy.
In short, you work for a business, which pays you for making goods or services. You then use your money to then buy from other businesses. There is a circular flow of money.
Investment, government purchases, and exports inject money into the system, making more money available for everyone in the economy. Savings, taxes, and money spent overseas come out in the form of leakage, reducing the amount of money in the system for everyone.
Offshoring is just another form of leakage. And no, it is not good.
You can pick a hell of a lot more oranges than 3 an hour. Most orange harvest crews pick between nine and eleven field boxes per hour per person. A field box is a 90 lb box. Nearly half (49%) of the oranges harvested by the sampled crews were harvested at a piece rate of $.70 per 90 pound field box. During the first week of January 1998, orange harvesters earned an average of $60 per day.
Increasing the amount these workers make would not significantly effect prices. Doubling the rate of the 90 pound field box to $1.40 would increase the average worker's pay from $60 to $120 per day. Tripling the rate of the 90 pound field box to $2.10 would increase the average worker's pay from $60 to $180 per day. Neither increase would significantly increase the cost of individual oranges in the supermarket. Further, either increase would mean more Americans taking those jobs.
it is not legal to participate in any political discussion in Mexico if you are an immigrant.
Wow, gee, all the more reason for us to ignore them in our country.
Do you really think that a wall is going to solve this problem???
As I said, we are now doing almost nothing, so putting up a fence is the first, most basic thing anyone can do to keep someone out. That can help close off one avenue of entry into the US used by a huge number of illegal immigrants. When that's done, we can focus on the next big problem. That may be the illegal overstay of visas or something else. But, sitting around and doing nothing only makes the problem worse.
I'm an illegal immigrant from Mexico (weird right....!)
With the huge amount of illegal immigrants, 57% of which are from Mexico, it isn't weird at all to find one. It is strange to find an illegal immigrant who can write English, owns a computer, has an internet connection, and posts on Slashdot. But then, statistically speaking, it's not improbable. Mexico does have the 15th biggest economy in the world. Certainly, they're doing some things right, even if they are major fuckups in other areas.
i didn't jump any wall I came here to the US legally with a tourist visa just as many people, even the immigration officer on the airport told me "Welcome to America"
The immigration officer welcomed you because you were a tourist at the time. You didn't become an illegal immigrant until you overstayed your visa. If that immigration officer saw you again today, he wouldn't be so nice.
the fact that all illegal immigrans jump the border it's not true.
I didn't say that all illegal immigrants jump the border. I said putting up a fence is a good first step, which it is.
Excuse me? In the US, the government decides the law based on input of American citizens. Foreign governments and foreign citizens certainly can give their input, but the we decide which of these inputs to accept. The United States is a sovereign nation, just like every other in the world. We make and enforce our own laws for our own benefit, thank you very much.
I miss the days when potential slashdotters would have argued something like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You need to keep reading to the 14th amendment: "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." All men may be created equal, but only if they're born here or go through the legal process can they be called citizens.
Yes, all men have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't give everyone the right to move to America.
Which probably contributed to the fact that in the past the Irish were treated far worse than current day Mexicans.
They are hardworking people. They pay taxes (yes, even the undocumented ones).
It doesn't matter how hard someone works. It doesn't matter how much or how little someone pays in taxes. If they're here without going through the proper legal process, then they are here illegally. That makes them an illegal immigrant.
And no, I do not mean "undocumented" worker. These workers do have documentation - it's just forged. So, that makes them illegal on two counts: illegally entering the country and the use of forged documents. The use of forged documents is a felony.
These immigrants are certainly not criminals. The worst you can charge them with is a civil offense (though some bastards in Congress want to change that).
The instant they get a false ID and use that to get a job, then they have committed a felony.
And since when is a persons' economic benefit to you the primary definition of whether they are human beings?
Illegal immigrants are human beings. That alone doesn't give them a right to enter America.
Our immigration policies are out of whack, built by bigtos for a time long past. They do not serve the current needs of our country.
Our immigration laws are fine. But yes, our immigration policies are out of whack. Too many illegal immigrants are able to sneak across our border, circumventing the system.
If we allowed many more immigrants into this country (particularly from Central and South America) we would not see the undercutting of wages we are seeing now. Middle class workers are not losing jobs to immigrants.
Bullshit. Ever heard of supply and demand? If you increase the supply of labor, then the demand for that labor goes down. Wages decrease and the middle class is put out of work. Eventually, the only people who have jobs are those on the low end willing to work for almost nothing. That's what has happened for the last 20 years. That's why wages for janitors have plummeted down from 20 years ago. That's why wages for meat processors plummeted down from 20 years ago. You can look at industry after industry. In every case, wages went down when illegal immigrants started taking those jobs.
If all of the undocumented immigrants in this country were given legal immigration status those wages would rise.
For a short time, maybe. Then, we'd see a wave of new immigration coming to America that would push those wages even lower.
You have to decide whether you will support the inherent dignity of human beings or not. If someone wants to emmigrate to build a better life from his or her family, it is our responsibility to provide the opportunity.
That's a false dichotomy. I support the dignity of human beings. But, I do not support the open border policy you propose.
Our laws are here for the benefit of Americans, not for the people of other countries. And yes, that includes our immigration laws. From what I can see, unlimited immigration would dramatically hurt the average American. It would create a depression far, far worse than anything seen in the 1930s.
If you have smart, ambitious people living in shit on one side of that fence, and people living in prosperity on the other side of that fence, and you don't provide a reasonable way for those smart, ambitious people to cross over legally... well... what do you think is going to happen? What would you do in such a situation. You would find a way. That is what we're fighting against here, that is why we're losing
We're losing because we're doing almost nothing. Putting up a fence is the first, most basic thing anyone can do to keep someone out. Sure, people can hop the fence, but that takes time. And given enough time, that lets Immigration show up and capture them.
According to the Pew Hispanic center, 57% of the illegal immigrants are from Mexico.
The US has entire networks of criminals set up to issue false documentation to illegal immigrants. They can come here, get illegal documents, get jobs, and live the American dream without anyone ever questioning who they really are. No, asking those kinds of questions is racist and xenophobic here in America.
Do you know what percentage of immigrants, documented or otherwise, are from Mexico?
The Pew Hispanic Center states that 57% of illegal aliens are of Mexican origin and about 75% are of Latin American origin as of March, 2004.
You want privilege, look to the Irish.
Interesting that you would bring up the Irish. When they immigrated en masse to the US, there were none of the anti-discrimination laws that exist today. The Irish were treated far worse than Mexicans are today.
Even so, the US is not facing a wave of Irish immigrants. No, we're facing a wave of immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Your argument there is an irrelevant red herring.
And yet you call risking your life, which people from all over central and South America do not just Mexicans, privilege?
The ability to immigrate here is set in American law. Those American laws are there of the American people, by the American people, for the American people - not the citizens of Mexico or any other country. So yes, it is a privilege for foreigners to immigrate here, not a right.
If US immigration laws cause problems for foreigners, then tough shit. Those laws aren't there for their benefit.
causing misery to many people.
The American government is there of the people, by the people, for the people. The people referred to there are the citizens of the USA, not the citizens of Mexico or any other country. If US immigration laws cause problems for foreigners, then tough shit. Those laws aren't there for their benefit.
No, immigration laws are there for our benefit. Without them, our country would be flooded with immigrant labor overnight. That would cause a depression the likes of which would be far worse than what we saw in the 1930s. You want a job? Tough shit. Either Anil Mehta would take your high end job or Juan Carlos would take your low end job. You would have to go to the end of the food handout, you stupid American.
Sure, employers would love such a labor market. That doesn't mean we should give it to them.
The market tells us very clearly what that labor is worth, and trying to prevent people from entering the country to take that deal is an intervention in the market.
No, the intervention in the market comes from employers attempting to manipulate labor supply and demand by subverting our national sovereignty in the form of eliminating our immigration laws.
The US produces 8.1 million barrels of its own crude per day. It imports 55% of the oil it needs. Certainly, there would be a major hit to the average American lifestyle were we to lose all foreign sources of oil (including Mexico), but we could still survive.
I dunno if geeks and Mormons mix. Mormons aren't allowed to drink caffeine and geeks tend to consider that a food group...
Illegals as welfare leeches is a myth; in practice they tend to avoid contact with government as much as they can, and the upshot is that they pay far more in taxes than they recieve in benefits
Tell that to my Dad who works at a state hospital in El Paso. He constantly sees Mexican immigrants who readily confess that they are illegal. Most don't have insurance. Most don't pay their bills. Luckily, his hospital still has funds to operate, but several similar hospitals in southern California have been forced to shut down.
They have aid cars called down to the border on a regular basis. Mexico regularly dumps its sick and dying on our side of the border for us to treat and release. Mexico can't afford the treatment, so it's fine with them to dump their sick on us rich and greedy gringos to have us pay for it.
GP: "I'm not here to teach you. I'm here to provide the information you need for the exam. If you think you can pass the exam without listening to me, you're welcome to leave." This is exactly how schools should be run.
You: Wut? That right there is a good reason for why schools are failing at their job.
Actually, that attitude is the same as the one presented in college, where America is the best in the world.
And, that is the exact opposite of the attitude in high school and below, where America is failing.
Together, they prove the point that students need to be held accountable for learning the material themselves and not be coddled by teachers attempting to force-feed information on students who don't want to learn and don't want to even be there.
There's too much of a sense of entitlement in high school. Students and parents believe that attending school for four years is enough for a diploma, regardless of the amount and quality of work. I say fail the bad apples who refuse to learn in high school and maybe they'll start taking high school and learning seriously. Then, we'll see improvements in our schools.
The pardon was very unpopular politically. As a result, the Republicans got pounded in the midterm elections, losing 49 seats.
Yes, and as a result, Reagan was able to come in at a time when no one was talking about impeachment. Had a trial actually occurred over 4-5 years, it would still have been fresh in everyone's minds years after the end. The pardon instantly ended all of that. Sure, it might have been a hit in the short term, but it was their best choice for the long term.
Ford cleared it away with his pardon power: Shazam! - Instant 25% more time to spend on little things like...
Bullshit. The pardon was not done to give Ford time to work on other projects. The pardon was not done to "heal the nation" or other such nonsense. Nixon wanted off. And they all wanted to get the Republican party out of the spotlight. Ford traded Nixon the pardon for the presidency.
You: Weren't you just complaining about that in President Clinton's case? Why is it different for President Nixon?
You want to compare the two? Fine, I'm perfectly all right going there.
The difference between the two is that Clinton was brought to justice.
The difference is that Nixon actually broke laws that people care about and which affect the nation. The only law Clinton broke was lying about his own sex life.
The difference is that we spent half a decade investigating Clinton and spending $50 million to find out that he lied about his sex life. We didn't spend anywhere near that amount of time or money investigating Nixon.
The difference is that Nixon was far more dirty than Clinton ever was. Nixon brokered a deal with Ford to trade the presidency for a pardon.
There is also evidence that Ford traded Nixon a pardon for the presidency. That's obstruction of justice. It shouldn't have been done. It was against the law. And it was possibly an impeachable offense.
Could you make up your mind?
Richard Nixon as President was the Republican party. He was the head honcho, the main man. A pardon for him was also a pardon for the party, as I already explained.
Ford did what was best for the nation.
Hardly. He did what was best for the only man who elected him to the position, Richard Nixon, and their political party, the Republicans.
Your notion of a 4-5 year trial is dubious speculation and political pornography.
Not unlike what happened to Clinton during his 4-5 year, $50 million investigation which only determined that like a vast majority of Americans, he lied about sex.
Although it might have been personally satisfying and politically useful to some people to pursue Nixon, it would have continued to take up large amount of time for an uncertain result
Yes, that's called justice. It's not pretty and it can take time. Instead what we got was a mockery of justice that only proves well connected dirty Republicans are above the law.
As far as I'm concerned, Ford is an accomplice to Nixon's crimes by letting him go free. Ford does not deserve my sympathy nor respect. If there is a hell, he is certainly burning in it.
No, that's a bunch of crap. Ford pardoned Nixon to protect Nixon and the Republican party.
Ford was a crook. He was an accessory to Nixon's crime, preventing justice from prevailing. Ford hurt this country by letting everyone know loud and clear that the rich, powerful, and connected are above the law.
...our current regime doesn't count as a imperial Presidency if the voters explicitly endorse it by putting him back in office
Yeah, IF. With all the cries of vote tampering and vote fraud in every election since 2000, no one could say definitively that Bush actually won legitimately. We know he lost the popular vote in 2000. And even though he won in 2004, the exit polls predicted otherwise. There are millions of undocumentable votes in machines produced by companies that are severely partisan for the benefit of the Republican party. Yeah, the Democrats won in 2006, but that just shows the Republicans didn't make enough fraudulent votes.