No, its not complicated. It just takes years to get a visa. It requires spending massive sums on lawyers because even the immigration forms are incomprehensible. They and their employers need those jobs filled now. As Nebraska demonstrated, once we start demanding this 'get a visa' nonsense without fixing a defective (and restricted) system, then that region of Nebraska went into recession.

You have a problem with illegals? Then your next post would demand we start with defective American immigration laws. Blaming the victim never solved problems.

Want to fix the visa problem? Start by eliminating nonsense quotas. But that would require political balls. Better to do as Nebraska did. Kick the feds out and employ more illegals. Again a problem that exists, in part, because American laws are defective. So instead we blame the victims. It is easier.

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

Every industry always makes complaints about how difficult it is to stay in business. It helped even during labor contract negotiations. That does not make it true. It’s too often nothing more than propaganda.

Meanwhile, tell us about what happened in Cancun. Tell us why the Doha round has missed another milestone. Where did I come up with that? I am simply repeating what virtually every nation in the world complained about so loudly as to walk out of an international conference three days early - in mass. This in part so that you would even learn how unfair they consider US trading practices. Why would they all walk out if America (and France) were not subverting these jobs throughout the world? Or maybe did you never learn about Cancun?

I don't give much credence to industries that are always crying unfair competition. If they cannot compete without government support, then they should move out. Curious. They would move to where Jose Mexicana desperately needs a job. Illegal immigration solved.

11 million productive people who would not be illegal if we started by fixing defective American laws - such as self serving, politically inspired, immigration quotas.

No their not suppose to be here. No, we are no supposed to give any corporate welfare to sugar, corn, cotton, and so many other agricultural industries. And no, America should not be dumping these crops on other nations thereby destroying overseas jobs. Finally, America that says oil prices are too high should not put a 54% tariff on Brazilian methanol. But then illegal immigration is being hyped as if it were the only problem AND that nothing we have done created that problem.

11 million would not be here if they could be doing those jobs at home – if America was a free trading nation in a spirit that has somehow gotten lost.

Why do you blame illegals for problem WE have created?

Employ more illegals? That is your solution to illegal immigration?:lol:
So when my son hits 13 I should just give him the key to the liquor cabinet as a solution to a late night out... right? Makes perfect sense.

if we have the jobs, then yes. However do you really think there is this mass of illegals who just can't get into America?

If you don't like illegals in America, then why are you not demanding those industries that cannot survive without those illegals move to where those ilegals live? Oh. American trade restrictions means those businesses - ie meat packing - must stay in America.

It is only speculation on your part that eliminating immigration quotas would only mean more illegals. Reality- it means a greater percentage of America's future population will be more productive. Are you opposed to more productive Americans?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which country's government granted you your security clearances?

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

Inquiring minds want to know! :rolleyes:

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

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

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

Bullshit, it isn't our responsibility to solve everyone else's problems. All these third world countries are whining that we don't fix their problems. Just because we don't fix them then we caused them? No way.
It's about taking care of this country. I don't care if they all piss and moan about us, we take plenty of lumps (and always have) in the "free trade" market.
Move more operations out of the country? Bite your tongue.:eyebrow:

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

a. another government

b. more than one government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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