Seems about right. Avant is pretty good, AVG is okay (with their web indexer crap turned off) CA Antivirus is somewhat OK, McAfee is a bucket of hamster vomit, and Symantec Antivirus is a steaming pile of dog shit (both personal and corporate editions).
I hear that XP Antivirus 2009 is really great though! Maybe I should try installing that?;)
Lesson learned - Give the same system rights to your windows users as your Linux users have, and they can't get infected even if they wanted to.
The corollary to that rule is that many applications won't run because they're poorly architected and require administrative rights to run. Oh, sure, you can finagle around with permissions and get many of them to run, but is it really worth the time to work around broken software? (running Windows which itself is broken notwithstanding)
No, it's more like this. You buy a Saab and the Trionic 8 software in the ECU senses you've upgraded the turbocharger and intercooler and retards timing and adjusts the wastegate to keep torque at the predetermined level level. This gentleman here is simply providing the equivalent of ECU upgrades, acting as a tuner. Just as a tuner isn't responsible if I decide to drive 170mph, it's not this gentleman's fault that people used the information and equipment to abuse network resources.
I hope this is a better analogy, because in the case above, nothing is being "stolen" - the ISP isn't "missing" any bandwidth (what, do they have a warehouse stocked with bandwidth and are running out now?), and no electrons were "stolen.":)
If people are going to make bad car analogies, I'm going to ask how much bandwidth was "stolen", quantified in units of volkswagons or libraries of congress.;)
Hey, I have an idea! Maybe thepiratebay.org could relocate their servers to be colocated on the ISS. I think the upper stratosphere is out of the Swedish court's jurisdiction!;)
On the other hand if you purchase a Dell or an HP ruggedized notebook* with the accidental damage protection the notebook will be repaired with no questions asked.
*or any model, for that matter. . . except you got one thing wrong. They will ask "where should it be shipped, and by the way, would you be interested in a nice shiny new Latitude or Precision today? Can I interest you in a nice new Dell printer [for which you can buy cartridges only from Dell]?"
When I pick up clients I make sure their "licensing"[sic] is brought into compliance. It's amazing how many PCs are in small-to-medium-size businesses where IT folk install "pirated" ("Yar! yo ho ho and a bottle of rum") corporate editions. I bring them into compliance but I use policies and now WSUS to restrict patches for days to weeks after release to learn of reports of patches breaking systems. They're always behind firewall appliances and running some sort of antivirus and anti-malware software. Why I am I so wary? I've seen many instances where Microsoft patches have broken software, ranging from being able to mount Microsoft Exchange info stores to rendering Windows itself unbootable. For clients on the go (notebooks, etc) I'll tell them sure, go ahead and update when prompted, keeping in mind that the patches haven't been proven in the field yet.
It's not just counterfeit license users who avoid patching; many delay patching until the updates have been proven "safe," or if the IT budget allows (it rarely does), testing them in a staging environment.
The best practice is to set up a WSUS server and push the updates out from your own servers, controlling when and where the updates get rolled out to client workstations (and other member servers). The sad thing is that almost no businesses value best practices until having experienced at least one catastrophic failure. Heck, getting smaller companies to accept even a reasonable backup regimen is like pulling teeth.
Agreed. I have a couple of Macbooks and a G4 but I hate, hate, HATE the one-button touchpad, so I choose to build hackintoshes instead. I can get better hardware in the deal while I'm at it (Core 2 Quad, various higher-end Nvidia cards, etc.) than Apple even chooses to offer in a Mac Pro. So, I keep the Macs around as paperweights and buy OS X to install on Hackintoshes. Everybody wins, even Apple.
I AM thinking of buying a Mac Mini, but not any of their notebooks, tightly-closed-and-unexpandable iMacs, and certainly not their Mac Pros when I can build a better workstation-class PC for less money.
Besides, the first sale doctrine allows me to do what I please on commodity good (i.e., not work-for-hire or rented) product I buy except for violate the copyright outside of Fair Use.
And why do Channel 4 force me to watch the Daily Show 3 days after the news happens?
How are they forcing you to watch it? Are they tying you in front of the telivision with your mouth gagged and your eyelids propped open with matchsticks?
Are they pointing a gun at your head?
Holding your girlfriend^H^H^H^H^HRealDoll hostage?
I signed no EULA to purchase OS X. The EULA is not revealed until after the time of purchase. Doctrine of first sale applies; it's a commodity off-the-shelf good, not a work for hire under contract.
Not should; you do have the right to do as you please with OS X, including circumventing DRM for the purpose of interoperability (read the big long exclusion clause of the DMCA - it is expressly stated) and reverse engineer it. The only limitation is you cannot violate the copyright outside of Fair Use defense guidelines.
It may be "unauthorised" per Apple policy, but right of first sale allows you to use your product however you please providing you do not violate copyright outside of fair use. You can resell that copy (and all backups must be transferred with the original), use it as a coaster, use it as a frisbee, or even yes, install it on non-Apple-branded hardware without violating copyright law. Apple policy is not law.
It's Apple's OS, they developed it, spend years and millions of $$$ making it - why shouldn't they be allowed to say what machines can and can't run it?
The first sale doctrine and that they offer the OS separately via both their web site and retail stores; their right to dictate how you use their product ends the moment the deal is done. It's not a work for hire so only copyright law applies.
I won't pay more for a Mac. I'd pay MUCH more for workstation-quality PC parts, with the RAID and Video controllers of MY choosing, than pay the premium of a Mac Pro. I will (and did) end up with a vastly superior hackintosh.
Likewise for notebooks: wake me up when Apple comes out with a trackpointer+trackpad+three mouse buttons making running Linux+KDE an enjoyable experience, and also give me internal RAID like the Dell Precision M6400. Until then I am not interested at all in Apple-manufactured notebooks. They sure are pretty but are limited, and god DAMN the person who keeps the notebooks stuck with a single-button "mouse" solution, because the "virtual" mouse button solution just doesn't cut it, especially when you need a "middle" click. Oh sure, I can carry around a mouse or a trackball, but that's a hack of a solution one should not have to resort to.
Perhaps Islam is, and Catholicism was, and maybe Mormon is still just a little bit, but if you read the New Testament you'll see that the first person who saw Christ resurrected was a woman. What is notable about that? A woman was not considered to be a credible witness in Roman-occupied Israel.If someone were to make up the story, he'd have chosen a man to be the witness, not a woman.
Also, it's worth noting that the feminist movement here in America didn't start out as a man-hating movement. It started out as a Christian organization founded by mainstream Protestants pushing for voting rights and for a little respect. That's about it. It has long since been corrupted into a almost-strictly-lesbian "we don't need men except as sperm donors" movement that, like affirmative action does with racism, only serves to perpetuate problems rather than resolve them. Women CAN earn the same as men, but if a woman decides to raise a child, well, that woman just decided to take weeks to years out of work. This reduces her reliability and experience compared to her competition (either childless women or men) and thus should reduce the amount of compensation she should be entitled to, unless she is willing to hop jobs rather than proclaim "entitlement" and demand the same raises everyone else who didn't take time off received.
The sad reality is women have to choose between child rearing or their career if maintaining the same pay level as a man is her goal; OR telecommute RELIABLY and have at least a moderate amount of "face time" at the office, OR start a home business so there are no significant gaps in experience.
Me? I have no choice to focus on my career. I'm intersexed and sterile, so there isn't any child rearing in my future at all, barring miracles or modern science being able to regenerate organs. It's simply not going to happen, so when I am working for "the man" there are no gaps in my experience, so I get paid on par with peers. *shrug* YMMV, batteries not included, and all that.
It all comes down to what everyone seems to shun nowadays: personal respnsibility and merit. Everyone "feels" "entitled" to a pony, or a big screen TV, or a McMansion, or a BMW, Caddie, Porsche or Lexus. Sorry, life doesn't and shouldn't work like that. You can't make both childen and career your priority. If you try to, you'll be both a lousy provider and a lousy parent, in that you'll be more distant from your children than you'd like. Pay should be awarded based on merit, not based on gender, color, religion, sexual orientation, or based on the company one keeps or what secret societies one belongs to.
On a tangent: There is a lot to be said for the "nuclear" family where the mom is the homemaker and the father is the sole provider, but there's a lot more going for more traditional families where the grandparents and aunts and uncles (an entire clan) lives and works together, helping everyone out, where the man might be making a very good living working for someone, and the mother might have a part-to-full-time business. Unfortunately, modern society has driven housing costs out of sight, women have been pressured to work (even when they would prefer to be full-time "homemakers"), and usually have to in order to afford third-to-half million dollar homes in most densely-populated states. Also, modern society has discouraged clans, painting them as antiquated and outmoded ways of living, whereas it is actually more efficient and ideal, aside from some, uh, "privacy" issues.
If you can make your way to Massachusetts or California, it is EASIER to "immigrate" illegally. The police and local INS are prohibited by their superiors from doing anything about it, and the government is pushing for "free" welfare, "free" transportation (including in some cases not just mass transit but actual "free"[sic] cars), "free" housing, "free" healthcare, "free" tuition and books at local colleges, while many local residents can't afford the health care or schooling.
We lost full-service gas stations when they implemented minimum wage laws. A lot of the bottom end of our economy would fall out.
Well, self-service is a gain, IMHO. I avoid filling up in Weymouth, MA, and I fill up right before entering Jersey. Why? "Full Service" is no longer full-service staffed by entry-level mechanics or senior mechanics manning the pumps during slow times; it's now mouth breathers, and NOT full service. They don't clean your windshield, check your fluids, or the air pressure in your tires. What they do is top off the tank, keep clicking the pump until they can't get any more in (often times damaging your charcoal canister), scratch your paint, and be rude to you. Why should I pay a premium to damage my car?
In SOME rare cases a "loss" in service is actually a net gain. I'd rather get out, fill it myself, taking care to not overfill, not scratch the paint, and clean the window without leaving streaks, and clean the back window if it needs it. The ONLY drawbacks are my hands smelling like gasoline for a short while, and dealing with cold in the winter.
Now, if "full service" were the full service that used to be in place through the '70s, I'd agree.
If you continue to support anti-immigration laws, you will continue to support violence, human exploitation, and all the other problems that come with organized crime.
Oh, how I love social engineering. "If you continue to support anti-immigration laws;" or calling pro abortion "Pro choice"
Just as pro-lifers support choice (i.e., making the choice before conception; at least use the pill or a condom; all we ask is you don't murder a baby for the sake of convenience), the people against illegal aliens are only asking people who are emigrating to their lands to immigrate to our land legally, and to embrace OUR language and OUR flag, and carry their own weight.
If I wanted to emigrate to say, Mexico, do you really think that they would allow me to get free health care, work under the table, get free education in their colleges, and to give me legal and government services forms in American English? Germany? Sweden, or even Saudi Arabia (they probably wouldn't let me drive or work there, let alone provide forms in English).
I am certainly not against immigration. If it weren't for immigrations, I wouldn't be here. My ancestors immigrated from Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Germany. The difference between then and now is they immigrated LEGALLY. They worked hard to carve out a living in the land of opportunity. They didn't come here illegally, demanding free health care, free food, free schooling, and free cars (yes it has gone as far as that in some cases!). They worked hard to make it here.
I have friends who are here from Costa Rica, Venezuela, China, and India who entered legally. They are having a heck of a time getting their green cards. They pay into social security even though they can't use it, they learned to speak, read, and write English fluently, and otherwise do things in a legal manner, and yet they keep getting the runaround. They want to become naturalized citizens and keep hitting roadblocks, and they don't get ANYTHING for free; if they end up out of work and poor enough to need welfare, they'll get deported. They are all very pro-American (except one Chinese friend, until after China took down one of America's surveillance plane, he eventually realized it's not we who are out to get them. He is now very pro america, has his green card, and is on his way toward naturalization).
Meanwhile, people who enter here illegally go right on welfare or social security, get free education, free food, free housing, have their forms translated to English, and in some cases have even gotten free cars from welfare programs, and they don't pay any taxes. They fly the flag of their countries of origin, and hate the American flag. It is disgusting.
There is a difference between being against illegal aliens and being against immigration. I haven't heard of anyone except the clan being against immigration (which is extreme hypocrisy; if it weren't for immigration "aryan" types wouldn't be here at all; it would be all red-skinned natives - who themselves supposedly "immigrated" here from Russia so for the KKK to refer to any color/creed an infection on this land is completely ridiculous. Their racist outlooks are the infection). I've heard only of extreme leftist liberals being pro-illegal-alien.
Illegal Alien: that is the correct term. Those people trespassing here, being here illegally, are NOT immigrants. They are invaders. They are here to cheat the system. They are here to get a free ride on welfare, work under the table, and take what they earned under the table back home to live like royalty when they go back home. They have no interest in being American, earning their keep, or contributing back to the system they are leaching off of.
What we need to do is give INS and the police the power they once had to enforce immigration laws; pack illegal aliens into crates and air-drop them back into their countries of origin. Treat them like the criminals they are, giving asylum(amnesty) only to those who are here to escape persecution or to those who are defecting from enemy states.
Slashdot Mirror
And they say the pirate bay was good for nothing. . .
Oh, right. It'd eat into the market share of their free product. Windows Live Onecare, you say? Discontinued.
Seems about right. Avant is pretty good, AVG is okay (with their web indexer crap turned off) CA Antivirus is somewhat OK, McAfee is a bucket of hamster vomit, and Symantec Antivirus is a steaming pile of dog shit (both personal and corporate editions).
I hear that XP Antivirus 2009 is really great though! Maybe I should try installing that? ;)
The corollary to that rule is that many applications won't run because they're poorly architected and require administrative rights to run. Oh, sure, you can finagle around with permissions and get many of them to run, but is it really worth the time to work around broken software? (running Windows which itself is broken notwithstanding)
No, it's more like this. You buy a Saab and the Trionic 8 software in the ECU senses you've upgraded the turbocharger and intercooler and retards timing and adjusts the wastegate to keep torque at the predetermined level level. This gentleman here is simply providing the equivalent of ECU upgrades, acting as a tuner. Just as a tuner isn't responsible if I decide to drive 170mph, it's not this gentleman's fault that people used the information and equipment to abuse network resources.
I hope this is a better analogy, because in the case above, nothing is being "stolen" - the ISP isn't "missing" any bandwidth (what, do they have a warehouse stocked with bandwidth and are running out now?), and no electrons were "stolen." :)
If people are going to make bad car analogies, I'm going to ask how much bandwidth was "stolen", quantified in units of volkswagons or libraries of congress. ;)
Hey, I have an idea! Maybe thepiratebay.org could relocate their servers to be colocated on the ISS. I think the upper stratosphere is out of the Swedish court's jurisdiction! ;)
*or any model, for that matter. . . except you got one thing wrong. They will ask "where should it be shipped, and by the way, would you be interested in a nice shiny new Latitude or Precision today? Can I interest you in a nice new Dell printer [for which you can buy cartridges only from Dell]?"
"whackamole" is more appropriate. :)
When I pick up clients I make sure their "licensing"[sic] is brought into compliance. It's amazing how many PCs are in small-to-medium-size businesses where IT folk install "pirated" ("Yar! yo ho ho and a bottle of rum") corporate editions. I bring them into compliance but I use policies and now WSUS to restrict patches for days to weeks after release to learn of reports of patches breaking systems. They're always behind firewall appliances and running some sort of antivirus and anti-malware software. Why I am I so wary? I've seen many instances where Microsoft patches have broken software, ranging from being able to mount Microsoft Exchange info stores to rendering Windows itself unbootable. For clients on the go (notebooks, etc) I'll tell them sure, go ahead and update when prompted, keeping in mind that the patches haven't been proven in the field yet.
It's not just counterfeit license users who avoid patching; many delay patching until the updates have been proven "safe," or if the IT budget allows (it rarely does), testing them in a staging environment.
The best practice is to set up a WSUS server and push the updates out from your own servers, controlling when and where the updates get rolled out to client workstations (and other member servers). The sad thing is that almost no businesses value best practices until having experienced at least one catastrophic failure. Heck, getting smaller companies to accept even a reasonable backup regimen is like pulling teeth.
It shouldn't.
Or, you can bypass technical measures for the purpose of interoperability, which is expressly permitted even by the DMCA itself.
Agreed. I have a couple of Macbooks and a G4 but I hate, hate, HATE the one-button touchpad, so I choose to build hackintoshes instead. I can get better hardware in the deal while I'm at it (Core 2 Quad, various higher-end Nvidia cards, etc.) than Apple even chooses to offer in a Mac Pro. So, I keep the Macs around as paperweights and buy OS X to install on Hackintoshes. Everybody wins, even Apple.
I AM thinking of buying a Mac Mini, but not any of their notebooks, tightly-closed-and-unexpandable iMacs, and certainly not their Mac Pros when I can build a better workstation-class PC for less money.
Besides, the first sale doctrine allows me to do what I please on commodity good (i.e., not work-for-hire or rented) product I buy except for violate the copyright outside of Fair Use.
How are they forcing you to watch it? Are they tying you in front of the telivision with your mouth gagged and your eyelids propped open with matchsticks?
Are they pointing a gun at your head?
Holding your girlfriend^H^H^H^H^HRealDoll hostage?
Holding your Xbox|Wii|PS3 hostage?
How exactly are they forcing you? ;)
I signed no EULA to purchase OS X. The EULA is not revealed until after the time of purchase. Doctrine of first sale applies; it's a commodity off-the-shelf good, not a work for hire under contract.
That the book states it does not make it true.
Not should; you do have the right to do as you please with OS X, including circumventing DRM for the purpose of interoperability (read the big long exclusion clause of the DMCA - it is expressly stated) and reverse engineer it. The only limitation is you cannot violate the copyright outside of Fair Use defense guidelines.
It may be "unauthorised" per Apple policy, but right of first sale allows you to use your product however you please providing you do not violate copyright outside of fair use. You can resell that copy (and all backups must be transferred with the original), use it as a coaster, use it as a frisbee, or even yes, install it on non-Apple-branded hardware without violating copyright law. Apple policy is not law.
The first sale doctrine and that they offer the OS separately via both their web site and retail stores; their right to dictate how you use their product ends the moment the deal is done. It's not a work for hire so only copyright law applies.
Actually I want a notebook that dual boots Linux and OS X and has a decent touchpad, but thanks for playing.
They, like the media conglomerates (RIAA and MPAA), are trying to change what copyright law actually is.
I won't pay more for a Mac. I'd pay MUCH more for workstation-quality PC parts, with the RAID and Video controllers of MY choosing, than pay the premium of a Mac Pro. I will (and did) end up with a vastly superior hackintosh.
Likewise for notebooks: wake me up when Apple comes out with a trackpointer+trackpad+three mouse buttons making running Linux+KDE an enjoyable experience, and also give me internal RAID like the Dell Precision M6400. Until then I am not interested at all in Apple-manufactured notebooks. They sure are pretty but are limited, and god DAMN the person who keeps the notebooks stuck with a single-button "mouse" solution, because the "virtual" mouse button solution just doesn't cut it, especially when you need a "middle" click. Oh sure, I can carry around a mouse or a trackball, but that's a hack of a solution one should not have to resort to.
Perhaps Islam is, and Catholicism was, and maybe Mormon is still just a little bit, but if you read the New Testament you'll see that the first person who saw Christ resurrected was a woman. What is notable about that? A woman was not considered to be a credible witness in Roman-occupied Israel.If someone were to make up the story, he'd have chosen a man to be the witness, not a woman.
Also, it's worth noting that the feminist movement here in America didn't start out as a man-hating movement. It started out as a Christian organization founded by mainstream Protestants pushing for voting rights and for a little respect. That's about it. It has long since been corrupted into a almost-strictly-lesbian "we don't need men except as sperm donors" movement that, like affirmative action does with racism, only serves to perpetuate problems rather than resolve them. Women CAN earn the same as men, but if a woman decides to raise a child, well, that woman just decided to take weeks to years out of work. This reduces her reliability and experience compared to her competition (either childless women or men) and thus should reduce the amount of compensation she should be entitled to, unless she is willing to hop jobs rather than proclaim "entitlement" and demand the same raises everyone else who didn't take time off received.
The sad reality is women have to choose between child rearing or their career if maintaining the same pay level as a man is her goal; OR telecommute RELIABLY and have at least a moderate amount of "face time" at the office, OR start a home business so there are no significant gaps in experience.
Me? I have no choice to focus on my career. I'm intersexed and sterile, so there isn't any child rearing in my future at all, barring miracles or modern science being able to regenerate organs. It's simply not going to happen, so when I am working for "the man" there are no gaps in my experience, so I get paid on par with peers. *shrug* YMMV, batteries not included, and all that.
It all comes down to what everyone seems to shun nowadays: personal respnsibility and merit. Everyone "feels" "entitled" to a pony, or a big screen TV, or a McMansion, or a BMW, Caddie, Porsche or Lexus. Sorry, life doesn't and shouldn't work like that. You can't make both childen and career your priority. If you try to, you'll be both a lousy provider and a lousy parent, in that you'll be more distant from your children than you'd like. Pay should be awarded based on merit, not based on gender, color, religion, sexual orientation, or based on the company one keeps or what secret societies one belongs to.
On a tangent: There is a lot to be said for the "nuclear" family where the mom is the homemaker and the father is the sole provider, but there's a lot more going for more traditional families where the grandparents and aunts and uncles (an entire clan) lives and works together, helping everyone out, where the man might be making a very good living working for someone, and the mother might have a part-to-full-time business. Unfortunately, modern society has driven housing costs out of sight, women have been pressured to work (even when they would prefer to be full-time "homemakers"), and usually have to in order to afford third-to-half million dollar homes in most densely-populated states. Also, modern society has discouraged clans, painting them as antiquated and outmoded ways of living, whereas it is actually more efficient and ideal, aside from some, uh, "privacy" issues.
If you can make your way to Massachusetts or California, it is EASIER to "immigrate" illegally. The police and local INS are prohibited by their superiors from doing anything about it, and the government is pushing for "free" welfare, "free" transportation (including in some cases not just mass transit but actual "free"[sic] cars), "free" housing, "free" healthcare, "free" tuition and books at local colleges, while many local residents can't afford the health care or schooling.
Well, self-service is a gain, IMHO. I avoid filling up in Weymouth, MA, and I fill up right before entering Jersey. Why? "Full Service" is no longer full-service staffed by entry-level mechanics or senior mechanics manning the pumps during slow times; it's now mouth breathers, and NOT full service. They don't clean your windshield, check your fluids, or the air pressure in your tires. What they do is top off the tank, keep clicking the pump until they can't get any more in (often times damaging your charcoal canister), scratch your paint, and be rude to you. Why should I pay a premium to damage my car?
In SOME rare cases a "loss" in service is actually a net gain. I'd rather get out, fill it myself, taking care to not overfill, not scratch the paint, and clean the window without leaving streaks, and clean the back window if it needs it. The ONLY drawbacks are my hands smelling like gasoline for a short while, and dealing with cold in the winter.
Now, if "full service" were the full service that used to be in place through the '70s, I'd agree.
Oh, how I love social engineering. "If you continue to support anti-immigration laws;" or calling pro abortion "Pro choice"
Just as pro-lifers support choice (i.e., making the choice before conception; at least use the pill or a condom; all we ask is you don't murder a baby for the sake of convenience), the people against illegal aliens are only asking people who are emigrating to their lands to immigrate to our land legally, and to embrace OUR language and OUR flag, and carry their own weight.
If I wanted to emigrate to say, Mexico, do you really think that they would allow me to get free health care, work under the table, get free education in their colleges, and to give me legal and government services forms in American English? Germany? Sweden, or even Saudi Arabia (they probably wouldn't let me drive or work there, let alone provide forms in English).
I am certainly not against immigration. If it weren't for immigrations, I wouldn't be here. My ancestors immigrated from Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Germany. The difference between then and now is they immigrated LEGALLY. They worked hard to carve out a living in the land of opportunity. They didn't come here illegally, demanding free health care, free food, free schooling, and free cars (yes it has gone as far as that in some cases!). They worked hard to make it here.
I have friends who are here from Costa Rica, Venezuela, China, and India who entered legally. They are having a heck of a time getting their green cards. They pay into social security even though they can't use it, they learned to speak, read, and write English fluently, and otherwise do things in a legal manner, and yet they keep getting the runaround. They want to become naturalized citizens and keep hitting roadblocks, and they don't get ANYTHING for free; if they end up out of work and poor enough to need welfare, they'll get deported. They are all very pro-American (except one Chinese friend, until after China took down one of America's surveillance plane, he eventually realized it's not we who are out to get them. He is now very pro america, has his green card, and is on his way toward naturalization).
Meanwhile, people who enter here illegally go right on welfare or social security, get free education, free food, free housing, have their forms translated to English, and in some cases have even gotten free cars from welfare programs, and they don't pay any taxes. They fly the flag of their countries of origin, and hate the American flag. It is disgusting.
There is a difference between being against illegal aliens and being against immigration. I haven't heard of anyone except the clan being against immigration (which is extreme hypocrisy; if it weren't for immigration "aryan" types wouldn't be here at all; it would be all red-skinned natives - who themselves supposedly "immigrated" here from Russia so for the KKK to refer to any color/creed an infection on this land is completely ridiculous. Their racist outlooks are the infection). I've heard only of extreme leftist liberals being pro-illegal-alien.
Illegal Alien: that is the correct term. Those people trespassing here, being here illegally, are NOT immigrants. They are invaders. They are here to cheat the system. They are here to get a free ride on welfare, work under the table, and take what they earned under the table back home to live like royalty when they go back home. They have no interest in being American, earning their keep, or contributing back to the system they are leaching off of.
What we need to do is give INS and the police the power they once had to enforce immigration laws; pack illegal aliens into crates and air-drop them back into their countries of origin. Treat them like the criminals they are, giving asylum(amnesty) only to those who are here to escape persecution or to those who are defecting from enemy states.