Why Keep GM, Chrysler Alive?

I gave him the off topic - nothing more than populist political spiel with no knowledge behind it besides what the barber said.

Russ

And do have the manners to spell America with a capital 'A' //////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\

america doesn't have any CAPITOL... ( Washington D.C. has Claimed it thoe...)

...and that is because you are from california? ;-)

Nah, Burt's

from LA, Orange county no less, which could be a different planet from my perspective, not representative of the majority of the state

I regularly have various epitaphs hurled at me, because I display my location as California

There is a diversity of political views. Much like other parts of the country, the rural areas being overwhelmed by the political clout of the big cites.

I could make certain observations about Florida, which wouldn't be accurate as to your specific situation.

Sounds like OR - three metro areas count while the remaining 95% of the state has no representation.

Los Angeles in Now: North T.J. // Or ~ Baha California = All California...

Speak for yourself Bert

Hispanics predate us in all of the southwest

.

& it's Baja California

Hispanics predate us in all of the southwest//////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

And we haven't Domesticated them yet...

Nor they us

but that is only a matter of time :D

Capitol [ˈkæpɪt^əl]n1. (Placename)a. another name for the Capitolineb. the temple on the Capitoline2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the. the main building of the US Congress3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (sometimes not capital) Also called statehouse (in the US) the building housing any state legislature

[from Latin Capitōlium, from caput head]

So - America, in fact, has the only one, as it so named "the main building of the US Congress".

Or, "Capitol" is the name of a place. A bit like Cyprus is a place and Cypress is named after an Elementary School, named after a tree

The word "cypress" is derived from Old French "cipres", which was imported from Latin "cyparissus," the romanization of the Greek "κυπάρισσος" (kyparissos).

(sorry about the Latin)

But just to point out why I spelled it;

capital¹
n

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy)a. the seat of government of a country or other political unitb. (as modifier) a capital city2. (Economics) material wealth owned by an individual or business enterprise3. (Economics) wealth available for or capable of use in the production of further wealth, as by industrial investmentmake capital (out) of to get advantage from5. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (sometimes capital) the capitalist class or their interests capital versus labour6. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Accounting & Book-keeping) Accountinga. the ownership interests of a business as represented by the excess of assets over liabilitiesb. the nominal value of the authorized or issued sharesc. (as modifier) capital issues7. any assets or resources, esp when used to gain profit or advantage8. (Communication Arts / Printing, Lithography & Bookbinding)a. a capital letter Abbreviations cap capb. (as modifier) capital Bwith a capital A, B, etc (used to give emphasis to a statement) he is mean with a capital Madj1. (Law) (prenominal) Law involving or punishable by death a capital offence2. very serious; fatal a capital error3. primary, chief, or principal our capital concern is that everyone be fed

4. (Communication Arts / Printing, Lithography & Bookbinding) of, relating to, or designating the large modern majuscule letter used chiefly as the initial letter in personal names and place names and other uniquely specificatory nouns, and often for abbreviations and acronyms Compare small [9] See also upper case

5. Chiefly Brit excellent; first-rate a capital idea

[from Latin capitālis (adj) concerning the head, chief, from caput head; compare Medieval Latin capitāle (n) wealth, from capitālis (adj)]

(Sorry about the Latin - again - and sorry that now you know the roots of Dairy City's new name, you may have to change it again.)

& you think Italians are 'dumb', rather than suffering from 'unstable economic forces'?

What kind of stuff are you smoking anyway? Must be strong to get so high.

Hello All,

The problem in general is the structure of a company. Most companies have a top down structure where the person at the bottom makes little pay and benefits little from the companies profits. There are companies that have a different structure where everyone shares the same level of power to control the company like a democracy. All have the same voting power and control. I don't believe a public company should give people so much money to few and so little to the many. If more responsibility is shared and profited from then maybe people would care more about what they are doing. If Chrysler for example was split up into 20 divisions each doing a part to make a piece such as a engine for example I believe there would be more ownership. Everyone likes to make money. But there is no hope for people at the bottom or middle to get a fair share. Why should some CEO get paid millions for a company to fail? The company structure is broke it needs to change to make it more competitive.

You might be able to do that with a very small partnership, but GM has 335,000 employees.

So, you propose to have 335,000 votes cast every time GM has to make some business decision? Thousands of those important decisions are made every day. How many hours of the day will be devoted to doing work after voting all day long?

What value will the 300,000 out of 335,000 votes have if those individuals are as clueless as you are about business management and structure?

Top down management is an essential mechanism to getting things done. As an executive in my company my job is to clear out the hurdles for the employees like you so you can do your job. This structure is also present in all of nature. Ant colonies work this way. Even the cells in your body are arranged as such (although we have all noted that some people seem to take orders from their ass instead of their head ;-) ).

There is a reason why the guys at the top get paid the big bucks. They carry all the risks and work many more hours than the guy at the line. They also invested more into the gray-matter between their ears.

The little guy gets to go home after his 8 hours and spend time with his family and maybe have a beer or two. The executive gets to go home late and ponder and plan on what the next steps he/she must make to keep the little guys employed and investors solvent.

Oh, incidentally, who are the investors? A lion's share are the retirement funds we little guys depend on to live after we reach retirement age and decide to enjoy our remaining years with our families.

imo that would be foolish.........people have to be led.......your analysis reminds me of the saying about 'too many cooks'........

This is a concept, an idea that is working in some companies right now. I don't know or propose to know all the answers. About how it will work. Of course I recognize the flaws of that kind of structure. There should be an allowance for education and experience. But just because you are a CEO doesn't mean you have experience or education. Many CEO's are in their position because they were sales people. Being a salesperson hardly qualifies someone as a CEO. The problem is when you give the profits and control to people outside of the company is when people are treated like commodities. There is no ethics in business today. That is why ethics of a sort need to be forced upon the people who would take advantage of people lower on the pay scale. I don't believe just because you are an executive you should get the right to treat people like dirt. That is what is happening to people today and that is why the people in these jobs are fighting back. If you want to have a private company instead of a publicly traded company then you can run it how you like. Public companies should funnel what they earn back to the people who earn it, not the stock holders. The whole wall street thing is a scam. The elite play with companies like big toys.

You wrote, "The problem is when you give the profits and control to people outside of the company is when people are treated like commodities."

No, they treat people like resources. This is not necessarily a bad thing, leaders just recognize that people are, at their roots, problem solvers and strive to place those resources where they can make the best contribution to the company or team.

You wrote, "Many CEO's are in their position because they were sales people."

What data do you have to back up that claim?

You wrote, "Being a salesperson hardly qualifies someone as a CEO."

What, in your opinion, qualifies someone to be a CEO? I genuinely would like to hear your thoughts on that one.

I have participated in and worked in many large and medium sized companies. The CEOs that I have met or have known of got there because they demonstrated a quality called leadership and had the right vision to lead the company where it should best go.

You wrote, "There is no ethics in business today."

Where is the data for that claim?

I strongly believe that your claim is solely based on your opinion rather than based on a statistical study.

The reason I say that is all of your statements are richly steeped with rhetoric that you have heard and now repeat.

You wrote, "Public companies should funnel what they earn back to the people who earn it, not the stock holders."

This statement is basically cognitive dissidence. Who do you think the stock holders are? Do you realize that the stock holders actually give funds to the public companies to be used by the company as capital and to pay employees? Are you expecting stock holders to simply surrender money to companies for nothing in return?

Let's start with some basics. Do you work? Let's assume you do. Does your company have a retirement fund? Most do. Do you have a clue how that works?

Where do you think that money comes from? How does it get to you?

Basically, a company will match a percentage of the funds you put into a retirement fund. That cash isn't just put into a Brinks truck and hidden in some cave. Much of those funds go into mutual funds as investments. Those mutual fund companies invest those dollars into a broad spectrum of stocks in other companies. Essentially, the very stockholders you are complaining about are, in large part, you and all your fellow workers. It is in your best interest that the investments grow and do well because that is the money you will need to live once you have retired and social security will be bankrupt by then.

Now, after you retire, if you really feel guilty about "earning" those investments, then by all means give it to someone else.

First, you really have a distorted view of business and free enterprise. Maybe you had a bad job or two with a bad company. It is true that not every company is a good one, but the good people vastly outnumber the bad. If you choose to dwell in the shadow of the negatives all your life you will be doomed to despair.

Second, if you really feel your vision is right, then get off your a$$ and start your own business and lead by example. Stop being a whiner and show us you are a winner. I dare you to do it.

Anonymous Hero,

Do I really need statistical study to make a point? Is this a fact finding mission or opinion laden responses to the question posed? Then also you seem to be saying I am a whiner because of my opinion and thoughts on the topic at hand? You know nothing about my background and no nothing about my winner or whiner status. Maybe you are trying to challenge me by saying that. Regardless of your intent of your comments I suggest that you refrain from judging my personal experience or knowledge. I know a great deal about how the system works. You are in error to assume I know nothing about retirement or stocks etc. I will also refrain from judging you on your "leadership" status. This is about in fact a system that is broken in ways. Those ways are corruption in the ways the system works. Lobbyist have a lot of power in laws and control of import and export. If we had the same sort of system of import like some other countries we would be considered protectionist, very hypocritical since other countries cry foul whenever we impose some sort of import tariff on their goods. This is not a opinion but a fact. Do I need to find the information for you or can you find it on your own? If you have a company that is public and has just started of course the "people" own it. That will be all sorts of investment companies, private buyers of stock etc. How about if the money stayed in the company and the stock holders got a fixed return and the profits be returned to the company and the people of the company? Do you think I am focusing on the good people in my comments here? Do you think I am so naive to believe that in order to be competitive we need to export all of our manufacturing? I am talking about these bad people. The ones that export jobs, technology, ideas, with no regard to the consequences. Do I need to show facts to support this or just look on the tag of the product you are holding. I understand maybe this boat has left the harbor but it is a real problem. Maybe it is you who has the distorted view. Pie in the sky ideas about how "leaders" have earned or deserve their position. You ever hear the saying "it's not what you know it's who you know"? That applies in business where someone is "gifted" their position, not earning it. Where is your data that most people running a company are good? Sounds like opinion to me. These are comments to a blog not scientific or fact based research. I like the idea that everyone can live with more of a share of what they earn. Do you like that idea? If they want then they can gamble it on a company on their own time. Do you really want to know what makes a good CEO to me? It is someone who has worked hard for it. Someone with compassion for the workers, intelligence, and knowledge about the market they are in. I fully understand there are hard decisions to make being in charge. Some are not pretty but must be done. Laying off people is sometimes necessary, firing, etc. I have met plenty of good CEO's and plenty bad. The car industry is an important one; one worth saving. I just hope that the people in charge have the drive and leadership that you dream about to make it happen. I believe and many experts believe that a strong manufacturing base is important to our country. Hopefully that will strengthen instead of steadily weakening like it has. Sure some of what I say is opinion, so? This sound like an opinion piece to me.

Prcisionassemblies: I know where you are coming as I have been there but I have been on the other side as well. I have worked for a large company. However, the branch plant I worked was not unionized and was the only plant that was not. I think the mother plant (Dupont) wanted to show the other branches that a union was not needed so any benefit that was obtained by the unionized plants, we usually did one better. That was in the sixties. Later in life, I built and operated my own company but it was smaller than a Dupont or GM by a long shot. I was the CEO and only decision maker. I could steer the plant that served me and the workers best and felt I did a decent job. The employees paid me to take ownership when I was forced to retire (illness). All in all a win/win.

I think your idea would have merit but there must be some give on the part of the union. For example, instead of accepting a wage that let you live better than 90% of the workers of USA or Canada, just accept a lower wage that would put you in the mid range. In lieu of the lower wage the worker would receive shares in the company. This acceptance of a lower wage will be a very difficult pill for many workers. It seems once you achieve a certain life style it is difficult to accept anything less.

If and once the workers owned a fair amount of the equity in the company along with all the public traded shares then you would have an equal say on wage increases, plant closure, or whatever decisions needed to be made. Your one share would allow you one vote. if you held 1000 shares you would have 1000 votes. However, you will still need an executive team to piece everything together. And they can also make day to day decisions vital to the operation. They would also require power to hire and fire as needed. Some quirks of ownership would be have to be worked out between the workers and company. For example, do you want the employee that gets fired to retain his shares or will he be forced to sell them back at fair value?

It would be to the benefit of the shareholders (workers now would hold a fair amount of this share equity) to hire the best executive team you could. These types of people will not come cheap and will expect fair remuneration for skills input. Consider it akin to a baseball team having a field of average players. The team will never win the world series until they pay the bucks for that marque player or three that is able to compete at the highest level. You will know other teams will do this to also be the champs. I think if I was an employee back in the sixties and given this option, I may have still been there till retirement. But it would have been to my benefit to make the plant healthy and look after it as if I owned it.

I do not know where you got the info about ceo's background. Most of what I understand of ceo's background is education from an ivory league college with a major in business. But I do agree about the ethics thing.....for the most part, but keep in mind the running a business does not mean having a one big happy family for employees. Too many personalities, your in business to make money not neccisarlly friends. I apoligize for the spelling.

btw, about sharing the wealth and giving back the profits to the people.....that sounds like communism. USSR tried that.

I really don't understand your communism comment. How is keeping more of what you earned communism? The company profits as a whole. If the employees get some of the profit aka "profit sharing" it sounds pretty fair to me. What is communist about that? Nothing really communist about that. Now if the government got a bunch of money and decided what to do with it that could be called communism. Oh wait they already do that to some degree. Not communism but for sure questionable about where all the money is going. Maybe the $1k toilet is catching up with us .

You wrote, "If the employees get some of the profit aka "profit sharing" it sounds pretty fair to me."

It depends how your compensation is structured. Some jobs pay salary, some by the hour, some pay bonuses.

In the end you are paid what the company thinks you are worth based on what the competitive market bears for that location, your drive level, and what's programed between your ears.

I've worked for companies that pay bonuses. The base pay rate was lower than competitive companies that did not pay bonuses. Basically, you shared the risk with everyone else. If the company did not meet targets you got less or no bonus at all.

Some people do not like that risk and just want their base salary and go home at night. Nothing wrong with that.

you say how it's related to communism. Perspective, earlier I believe you said to share the profits, I do not think that's earned, that's more communal.

It seems like we're retreating into ideological bunkers again.

Yes of course John, but that seems to be what it boils down to with the posts title is "Why Keep GM, Chrysler Alive?" But you don't, with replies like yours that does frame ideological ideals.

Unless you want answers like ...YES and NO with no reasoning what so every, or worse yet, unfounded banter.

entertainment, we definitely have things in common

It's a shame a post like this didn't appear 200 ago. GA

beyond the ambit of capitalism v communism.///////////\\\\\\\\\\\\

GOING ALL THE WAY BACK: to the Dawn of Life on earth; Jesus = Commun ism & Christ = Capitol ism.

What does this "///////////\\\\\\\\\\\\" mean Bert?

What does this "///////////\\\\\\\\\\\\" mean Bert?

Caution: Danger Ahead... As seen on Barricades & backs of trucks.

Thanks, yep, I see it now.

Pictorial, rather than "slash-ing" ...... which .. in some places is slang for "writing in snow"

Go back a bit further to the 'cave'. Rob and kill your enemies and help your family and friends.

Competition and cooperation are both so important to our survival that they are encoded in our DNA. Feudalism, Capitalism, and Communism are all clumsy (and laudable) attempts to wrestle with our inner conflict of who to help and who to destroy. You make a good point about Christianity. 'The lilies of the field toil not' - but they do get plowed under and trampled by invading armies. Following this belief is an awesome commitment, but in this rough and tumble world very few have the stomach for the personal sacrifice required. Any that do certainly have my admiration, but in spite of the large numbers who profess Christianity, the number who actually practice it is probably so small as to be economically insignificant.

I'm entertained :D

we should also be able to talk about the short comings of the present tax structure.

we should be able to talk about how we can level the playing field some to make regional manufacturing more attractive.

for far too long we have allowed access to our still lucrative markets, in ways that favored outsourced cheap labor & hiding the profits using shell companies.

Yes we should definitely talk about our tax structure. I can think of three ideas floating around right now that could help, but oxen will be gored:

Begin raising the tax on fossil fuels. Spread it out over ten years or so and allow time for wages, rents, etc. to adjust so the poorest among us don't get slammed, and to allow business to adopt more energy efficient equipment and processes.

Phase out (or limit) the mortgage interest deduction. This is a perverse subsidy that makes housing seem more 'affordable' to the homeowner, but inflates the actual price.

Allow businesses to deduct the entire cost of new investments in plants and equipment in the year the purchase is made. This gives business the option of being their own bankers, cutting out the cost of interest. (I think this has just been done)

Yes we should 'talk about how we can level the playing field some to make regional manufacturing more attractive.' One of the most glaring omissions in current economic 'theory' is the short shrift paid to the multiplier effect. Buying locally increases the multiplier, to the benefit of our neighbors and ourselves. Shipping a can of beans across a continent makes little sense (unless they are awesomely good beans). Raising gasoline taxes will help in this regard. But I think this is more complicated than it looks and I hope someone with more knowledge on the subject can offer some insights. There must be more to why we have global megabrands than just a group of greedy bastards somewhere plotting to pick our pockets. Coca Cola tastes better than generic coke, and it's really hard to grow habaneros here in Oregon during the winter (or summer for that matter).

I completely agree that 'open markets' is more of a slogan than a policy, and that outsourced cheap labor is killing us, but I am pretty much clueless about what we can do about it. A big part of my income is from providing services and equipment to businesses around the world, and any blatant protectionism on our part will be reciprocated. Other than increasing our skill levels (through education), fostering innovation (through education), becoming smarter consumers (through education) and trimming our cost of living, I don't know what we can do.

John,

Like always it comes down to who is going to accept responsibility for what? GM was not entirely a bad company but had a lot of eggs in the truck basket. Like most big vehicle manufacturers they were betting on the SUV bringing in the bucks. There is another thing that GM screwed up is the saturation of market. Instead of making better fewer cars they focused on production, overproduction. The problem is that it seems that the politicians in the south support foreign business and the decline of American manufacturing. This is where all the foreign plants are going. I would present the facts but I think it is pretty common knowledge that this is the case. When you have Americans betting against Americans I question their morals. So the CEO goes to this state and says can you give me a tax deal? I will give you jobs and growth in your state and you will give me a tax break. Plus these new states don't have a union involved in building the cars. So we have a win win for the deal makers. The losers are the existing companies that have legacy costs. Do we want a bunch more unemployed people from the automotive industry? I don't think so. Not to mention all the collateral damage of other companies failing as a result of this very large company failing. It seems to be a no brainer decision to me to prop them up. GM is doing better and will recover. If there was no economy issue then sure let them collapse because they failed and should be allowed to fail. I just hope that we all have learned from this experience that the economy is fragile and is not an unstoppable juggernaut like some treat it. I see the whole problem as 1% of the people make the money and have the power to dis rail the economy. I do think that people should be able to make as much money as they can but at what point is it immoral to take advantage of the average worker? Would someone making six or more figures pull back some of their greed to help out their company and fellow worker? I think it is wrong that so few have so much. But I don't believe in communism as a concept and I don't believe capitalism is working that smoothly. You can't sell out your country and fellow American for a dollar. Which in my point of view is what is happening. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

PRECISIONASSEMBLIES wrote: "You can't sell out your country and fellow American for a dollar."

This may take us OT, but how is a fellow "earthian" worth less than an American?

Point taken. No one should be sold out period. Double crossing should not be anyone's value. But this is relative to American companies in the subject. If the subject was TA TA motors or Cherry the same would apply to the industry there.

Maybe the Civil War isn't quite over yet. I suspect that this is one of the issues that continues to divide us as a nation (divided we fall and all that).

My initial reaction when GM hit the fan was to find some way to fold the good parts into Ford, which appeared to be under better management. I'm not sure that in a global market our old belief that domestic competition favors the consumer made much sense anymore. But I might have been to quick with that judgement. GM may well emerge as a viable business, and the taxpayers may well get their money back. Morally I believe that the concentration of wealth in this country has gone to far, but certainly there are arguments to be made in favor of wealth concentration: it provides a ready pool of money for needed investments, the wealthy deserve the money because they earned it, and if the middle class and poor are broke they can't afford to buy so much stuff from China. But it doesn't seem like this is working out. The concentration of wealth over the last few decades has led to investments, but not so much here in the US. Much of the investment has gone overseas, putting our workers in direct competition with much cheaper foreign labor. A big part of this cash has also gone into a series of asset bubbles, which drive up the cost of living, making our competitive position even worse. The steady stream of business scandals (make your own list) suggests that some rich folks didn't really earn it (make up your own percentage), and of course with the steady decline of the estate tax, some of the rich not only didn't earn it, they didn't even have to go through the trouble of stealing it. And finally, the more broke the middle class and poor get, the more they shop at Walmart. Under the current conditions screwing the average worker may be immoral, but it is also in my opinion bad economics.

More to the point, much of the investment we desperately need is public, not private. Our infrastructure is crumbling, largely as a result of short sighted anti-tax attitudes, and our education system is flailing, as a result of our preference for mediocracy. I also think we have a situation here of life imitating art: there is more than a whiff of 'Atlas Shrugged' in the current argument that businesses are not willing to invest here until they get a better deal from the government. I think they are not investing because they don't see enough demand to justify it. Since they are now sensibly sitting on their cash, it doesn't cost them anything to suggest that taxes (not a moribund market) is the problem.

The View from SPUTNIC: U.S. of A. Opened it's borders, to diversity, the working class, & Government, bought Import CRAP, cheep; to show that this country is blending with the rest of the world. ( That is 90% Povereshed.) We are becoming a 3rd. world nation. { THE WORLD TRADES TOWERS, WEREN'T WANTED ANY MORE... THEY TRIED TO BALLANCE, IMPORT & EXPORT.} The TROJEN HORSE IS IN THE FORT! Our defenses are corrupted by our Politicians!!!

Maybe we can compete with our superior technology and education. Oh wait we already gave that away. Back to the drawing board.

Or maybe desist seeing everything through "Fortress America"?

you have to realize that america was fortunate to have resources and opportunistic people as well as world events to advance this nation. For the most part, each nation on earth is capable to carry the torch for the lead in technology. As far as education......lets say for the last 40 years we would be fortunate to be in the top five.

How long will the ogre be loved for its attempt, to be compassionate, with dropped borders?

Perhaps ask her how you got to where you are?

Perhaps ask her how you got to where you are?

Did the Loyal Citizens, Build U.S.of A. Or Tresspassing Leaches?

If I asked that of an Australian aboriginal he/she would say "the trespassing leaches" - and be right. Or of an original Britton, or Goth, or Gaul, or Cossack, or Moor, or ...... same answer.

But I fully understand your position if you are American Indian, or maybe of Meso-American decent - other wise not, it's just a "fear of what has been done to others, turning full circle" argument. Pragmatically unfounded.

my great grandfather was born in switzerland and came to this country at the age of sixteen, with very little money, if any............as a stow-a-way........not to escape poverty, or repression, for his family owned a large successful clothier. when I was sixteen, I often wondered if I could have mustered that kind of courage.....maybe ask yourself the same, instead of living off your grandparents courage.

SURE: They came here, full of hope & Drive for a better life... But: They Built U.S.of A. The now invaders are braking down what was built! Our Population increase, in the last 40 Years, is faster than our Security can Protect. ( unless we sacrifice our Freedoms.) More people ~ More Crime. More Expense.

TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING... IS "TOO MUCH"!

I like to think the usa is not built. But in the constant process of building. I do believe that the borders should remain open, but not to people looking for a state of welfare.

Obviously, you have not seen the facts. The US crime rate has dropped considerably in the last decade.

It may feel like things are going to hell in a handbasket, but that is what happens when you use opinionated news as a source for facts to form one's own opinions.

One must do some research to dig up the real truth, which is not always a simple task.

Depend upon who's facts you are quoting.

My initial reaction to your 'facts' is to scream BS.

Facts? Stats? They can and are manipulated to suit the argument.

Stu.

They are not "my" facts. Here are just a few sources and there are many, many more available with a simple search.

Link #1

Link #2

Link from US Gov

From FBI

I have not run into any reputable data that conflicts with these studies, but if you have some, please post them.

The bottom line is, even though we "feel" like things are degenerating, the data states otherwise.

The reason we "feel" like it is worse is primarily due to our news sources and the picture they either intentionally paint or inadvertently create as part of their entertainment charter.

Most news today is a combination of entertainment factor (sales and revenue) and pushing that organization's agenda, unfortunately.

You wrote, "Facts? Stats? They can and are manipulated to suit the argument."

Yes, but I think you will find it virtually impossible to make a case for that to support your argument here. The preponderance of evidence (independent and government) points to decreasing crime rates.

You wrote, "Perhaps ask her how you got to where you are?"

It is called legal immigration.

The US has one of the most (if not the most) open borders in the world. Yet we get chastised by various countries (who have some of the most brutal border and civil rights policies) in the world for attempting to control our own borders.

Americans love our immigrants. After all, that is where we came from. We just want to do it in a fair and non-chaotic fashion and we have a right to do that.

But only because Bert asked.

Perhaps chat with him rather than defend yourself against what I don't think anyway, never inferred and don't dispute - except so far as I think: All borders aught to be, are lines de-marking, infrastructural responsibility.

And if you like, you could put that last bit to Gilbert and Sullivan - Pirates of Penzance?

Immigration LAWS... Are for our DEFENSE! If you can't see the stripping of "U.S." of A. by invaders; you are blind, young, or an invader. Not: That I support U.S. invasions of other Country's, for there Democracy.

We have what is called a VISA " NOT A CREDIT CARD:>( " Means You are allowed to VISIT!!! Obey our Laws & You are Welcome... Learn our Language... & Become a Citizen if you want. ( with your oath to Loyality.) THAN YOU CAN "VOTE"!!! { NO DUEL CITIZENSHIP.} Than you arn't under the threat of loosing what you have earned here, with deportation & Jail.

I have often wondered about 'legal' immigration and 'moral' immigration.

I have also wondered often if you went back and asked the aboriginals of both our countries the legality and the morality of the initial immigrants.

However, having arrived at a status quo, I do agree with the post which suggests that those wishing to take advantage of a society, which has evolved to a point where it is irresistably attractive to immigrants, those immigrants are then morally and ethically bound to adopt the rules, regulations and communications of that society.

Those wishing to change said society to suit themselves should be prepared to be ejected by the existing status quo.

Stu.

there was a country who lead the world in math, science and technology. Over a 1000 years ago. They closed their borderss. And dropped to a third world status. After wwii, they realize their mistake and changed and now fast becoming #1 again. That country.....China.

Closing the Borders... No! Requireing Permits YES!

China's borders are open? I wasn't aware of that.

compared to this country, no but more so now than they were thirtyfive - forty years ago and to trade, they realize it has to open more...... After being and practicing isolationist for so many years it doesn't happen over night.

I have a friend that has a wife that is from Peru. She is an architect and has been working in the US for over ten years. She just got her citizenship two weeks ago after a 7 year ordeal. Needless to say, she's not very happy about people just being able to slip in here and set up house.

Immigration should always be allowed, but not illegally. We've got the murderous cartels and the violence that comes with them spilling over the border, as well as terrorists that are very aware of how easy it is to get in here. That needs to be addressed.

when I talk about open borders I'm talking about freedom to travel and immigrate. And I understand to become a citizen here is difficult. But how it was in the ninties visitors stated we were asking for trouble. They left heathrow with police carring automatic weapons arrive in new york, and felt vernerble because they had a hard time finding a police officer with a gun. Funny part is, this country was viewed as a gun slinging society by the europeans.