Soxbadger

Im not sure what the Sox plans are for Dayan next year. My guess is maybe play winter ball and see how he does in ST. But being on the opening day roster next year wouldnt surprise me.

Its just hard to guess if sending Dayan down now would hurt his confidence more than letting him struggle a bit on the big league club. Its hard to be patient in a pennant race.

Send Dayan down for what? Minor league season is basically done in 2 weeks. Might as well have him working with Walk and hopefully he can be strong for us down the stretch. And I hadnt heard about the cell phone ban... Saw plenty of people with them yesterday, including myself.

I wasat the game yesterday, great game to watch haha

The problem would be the full faith and credit clause. State A wont appreciate State B making rules that may make it so that people from State A couldnt drive in State B, while at the same time allowing drivers from the State B to drive in State A.

Florida most likely has the right to make a law that states you need to be a citizen/legal alien to drive. They would have major issues with other states due to the full faith and credit clause, but if they could work them out, potentially this could be okay. The problem is under the full faith and credit clause, Florida would most likely have to allow drivers with valid licenses from other states to use their roads, which would mean if in Alabama all you need is $50 for a license with no proof, Florida would have to allow the Alabama driver on their road, regardless of immigration status. But if they made those laws, then they would be probably allowed to enforce them.

I dont think the govt should have the right to ask for citizenship papers at a lawful stop. It has no relationship to whether or not the person was speeding or committing another vehicle related offense. They have a right to ask for license, registration and insurance because those (in some states) are prerequisites for being able to drive legally on the road. Unless Florida makes being a citizen a prerequisite for driving on Florida roads, I dont see why it would be relevant whether a person was an US citizen, Japanese Citizen, Illegal immigrant, or martian. Now if Florida makes a law that says only US citizens can drive on their roads, they would definitely have a legitimate right to ask for proof of citizenship.

But any potential savings have to be balanced against the cost of enforcement. Therefore I believe that when you add the cost of enforcement you are talking about a zero sum gain. I actually believe it would become like the "war on drugs" where it costs the govt more to enforce than it would to just let it go. But in many cases it is better to be an illegal US citizen, than a citizen of wherever they come from. The 14th amendment issue is to prevent those unborn children from becoming citizens by right. Many of their parents would have come to the US regardless. It is the child who is being punished and who will be put in limbo, because if they are born in the US and they arent US citizens, where are they citizens of?

Im not sure there would be cost savings. People dont come here illegally so that they can be citizens, they come here for a better life. If you make it so that their children are illegal too, it just will create more illegal immigrants in the US. It will mean that the govt has to spend more time and money on deportation etc. Here is a question, what is the right way? To me the right way should be, applying and being accepted. That you should be accepted in a reasonable amount of time. That until the US has a legitimate "right way", I dont think you can punish people who circumvent the process for the best interest of their family. Who here wouldnt do whatever it took to give their family the best life possible? If you were told youd have to wait years to come to the US, and it may put your family or your life at risk, would you wait? Or would you just come illegally?

I assume you mean any change would not be retroactive. And people are going to disagree on what the purpose and function of the US is. I understand the arguments and rationale for restricting citizenship, I just dont agree with it.

Not if it wasnt done by the Nazi's. If the govt created a program where it would ensure that all people received equal education regardless of race, religion, etc. Im not sure how you could make a valid comparison to the Nazis. Conversely if the govt was to create a book burning program, I think you have a pretty legitimate comparison.

Sorry Balta, in political/history/legal discussions I have never been told a completely apt comparison is off limits because its "to inflammatory". If some one wants to make a point how this would differ from the law that I quoted, feel free. The problem is, that they are similar and people dont want to admit that US society has similarities to 1935 Germany. The bigger problem is, if we are afraid to make that comparison, then we are doing those who died a disservice and their death was for nothing. I think anything done by the Nazi's that was a precursor to the holocaust is definitely comparable to something done by the Nazis. Isnt the fact that it was done by the Nazis make it something that is comparable? Its not like im creating some fictitious idea. The Nazis took away Jewish citizenship. People are arguing that we should either limit or take away citizenship of certain US individuals. How is that not comparable? I just dont see why Nazis are completely off limits when they are the most recent and sensible comparison.

And the counterpoint is, I never said that this would ultimately lead to another holocaust. I merely showed that people must be very careful when giving govt this type of power. Because in the past this power has been misused. So when you act like there is absolutely nothing bad that can ever happen from this, you need to remind people that Germany didnt start with gas chambers. They started by slowly eroding rights. As for what the other countries do? Is that at all relevant to what I believe the US should do? If 99.9% of of the countries made it illegal for Muslims to worship, would that make it okay for the US to do it? If 99.9% of the countries said killing Jews was okay, would that make it okay for the US? If 99.9% of the countries believed in aristocracy and title, should the US? The entire point of the revolutionary war and the United States is that we dont do what other countries do just because it might be easier. If our creed is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then its the US responsibility to give it meaning. Not for the US to sink to the level of other countries.

If this is all you got from the post, then I am truly saddened. Perhaps you guys should actually read the statements. If you would, you would realize not only am I not calling anyone in this thread a Nazi, I am actually defending German citizens pre1935, in saying that they werent Nazis at all. That they were just people in one of the most horrific depressions who were trying to find a way to survive. And like I said before, people are going to be offended by my beliefs.

Im trying to find out if Godwin is jewish. My guess is he is not. Disagree. By making the Nazi reference, in this specific case, you are showing how a very small law, can set the stage for something far worse. You dont think its relevant that one of the first steps to the holocaust was removing Jewish citizenship? For similar reasons to the ones that people are making today? And most Germans didnt want gas chambers for Jews. The problem is once they gave the govt the power to make these rules, the German people lost all control. Most Germans never would have believed taking away Jewish citizenship, restricting their right to marry, would lead to the death of millions. If they were told that do you really believe they would have voted for it? They were told that this was a way to protect them, to make sure that the Jews didnt take all of their money, etc. If Godwin cared about the Holocaust or Jews he would never dissuade anyone from bringing up the crimes of the holocaust. We must never forget. His law, creates a disincentive to speak about the holocaust/Nazi's because his law can be used to create a strawman argument. Instead of focusing on the true facts.

I couldnt use as many quote tags as i wanted so i bolded other peoples comments.

It has nothing to do with race, it's based on citizenry. Disagree. No one is foolish enough to believe that in today's US society they could be outright racist, therefore you cloak racism with the "citizen" argument. This is not the first time its happened (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) And its not the first time that US immigration policy has been used to keep out undesirables. (See US immigration quotas prior and during WWII with regard to Jewish immigrants and countries with the highest Jewish populations) Then why have ANY requirements, INCLUDING having to be born here? Well in order for society to function (at least in order for our society to function) we have to have some sort of way to track people and make them pay taxes, etc. Thus if it was up to me the requirements for being a citizen would be nothing more than filling out a piece of paper that states you want to be a US citizen, that you agree to follow US laws, and that you will play for our sports teams in the Olympics or World Cup. I dont need them to past some US history test, I know that plenty of US citizens dont know s*** about history. So, if they don't, they shouldn't be given that right? Some don't pay taxes, but still want to be citizens. And it's not "eventually," in this case, it's immediate. And if they dont pay taxes, like many current US citizens, they would be subject to the laws of the US. What is odd is that if they are US citizens or have some incentive to pay US taxes, they are more likely to pay them then if they are "illegal" and dont even have a SS# to pay taxes on. Why would you pay taxes if your an undocumented worker? You need to give people a reason to pay the taxes. Yes, because "citizen" has no meaning or benefit. Words only have the meaning or benefits that we give them. There used to be a benefit to being a lord/lady, duke/duchess. Eventually those benefits were eroded because society has grown to despise artificial class heirarchy. How about saving the future of our social services for people who actually have paid into them here and need them? Why not let people in legally so that they can pay for those social services? It would seem to make sense that if we let them in and make them pay taxes, that this wouldnt be an issue. I'm pretty sure you just called me a racist, which is laughable. I dont believe I called anyone a racist. I merely stated that this idea is nothing more than a pretext for racism. I have no clue whether you are for or against the idea. Furthermore, it is possible to support the idea for non-racist reasons (ie you dont support the 14th amendment because you think that it is to broad and should be more narrowly tailored). Im not in the business of accusing people of being racist or not. I have my opinions, I stand by them, if you think my opinion paints you as a racist, Im sorry but thats how I feel. And Im not going to back down or try and be more pc, because this is something that you cant give an inch on (imo). It is my duty as an American citizen to fight ideas like this, it offends my very existence. Citizenship is this country's single greatest commodity. And the more you flood the country with that commodity, the less value it has, NOT because it means "undesirable" people are here, but because there are limits to the OTHER resources we have. Jobs, government services, water/land/natural resources, money, etc. Disagree. America's single greatest commodity is freedom. Furthermore I disagree that it limits jobs and govt services. More immigrants could result in more jobs and more government services. How do we know that this immigrant wont be the next Bill Gates, or Carnegie (born in Scotland) or Alexander Hamilton? By restricting immigration you very well could prevent the next great entrepreneur from entering the US. As for the water/land/resources. There is no doubt that the more people that come to the US, the more scarce resources will be. But who are we to say that the doors are closed? That weve reached maximum capacity? Many times in US history they have tried to restrict immigrants because of these reasons. Many of us, may not have been allowed here if those restrictions were enacted. Some of us may have never existed because our parents or grandparents would have died from persecution, war, etc. I will not close the door on other immigrants, so long as I breathe, that much I can assure you. Just as I have said in here in many ways that you HAVE to be careful with the consumption of natural resources if you want society to thrive, similarly, you HAVE to be careful of the rate at which people are coming into the country to access them. The US has a population density far lower than most advanced countries. According to Wikipedia (to lazy to find world book) is 178th in population density. Is it possible that in the future we reach a point where population density is a legitimate concern, of course. But right now, its not even close. The U.S. is the place more people want to live than anywhere on Earth, far and away. We have something really great going here, even with its flaws. If you just fling open the doors with no restrictions to access and citizenship whatsoever, you will get huge floods of people that will inevitably make life more difficult for everyone here. This is why we have restrictions on citizenship and visitation, just like every country on earth (or close) does. I dont disagree that life will be harder. But I would rather my life was harder and it gave some one else the chance to have a semi-decent life, than have my life being easier and knowing that there are people suffering around the world, who have no hope, and I turned my back on them. So... since most people would agree that SOME sort of controls must be in place... the debate is not something ethereal and idealistic as you seem to think. What it really is, is deciding where you want that line to be. And all I'm saying is, maybe when deciding to draw that line, you should make life EASIER for the immigrants who do things right, and HARDER for those who don't. I dont care what most people think. Im not a politician so I dont have to sell my soul so that I can appeal to the majority of people. My sentiments are to appeal to those who believe in American spirit. My way is not going to be easy, its not going to mean that all of us get to be rich at the expense of other nations being in poverty. And the point of my statements is that I already believe that the line is to far against immigration. So when people say that theyll just be moving the line a little bit more, my stance is, its already been moved to far. I hope that one day my ideals will be shared by the majority of Americans. As for easier for immigrants who come here legally. Wouldnt it be easier on all immigrants if we made it easier to become legal? Shouldnt we be trying to make it easier to become legal, instead of putting up more barriers to become a citizen? If we cared about ease, then you wouldnt be talking about getting rid of the 14th amendment. Part of the reason the 14th amendment was created was to make it "easier" to determine who was a citizen. Without the 14th you were getting into a huge clusterf*** of trying to decide who has what rights. Maybe, maybe not. If they are getting paid cash, no. At the end of the day, having a way to control costs is step number one in saving programs like social security, medicare, and forced health care. Having no mechanism at all to control the amount of people going into the programs is going to bankrupt them. You want to stop this. Go after the employers. Employers are the ones paying in cash to prevent it from being on their books, so they dont have to pay all different sorts of taxes, insurance etc. You could stop this whole thing by nailing the employers, but since the employers are "citizens" we overlook the fact that they are the ones who commit most of the tax evasion. And that is not limited to dealing with immigrants, it includes independent contractor fraud, etc. But companies have big money to make sure that congress doesnt come down on the real problem. Further, if people are here illegally, they only pay in PART of the tax regime, if any. So again, they don't push up the other side with perfect efficiency. Therefore there is leakage and weakness economically. Which is why you let them here "legally" and then you can prevent this. Removing the 14th would create more "illegal" immigrants which would unbalance the system more and have less coming in, while still having to potentially pay out. Not to mention by nature that people who are entering here illegally, are usually in the poorest segments, which means the rest of us have more cost to pick up. Which goes back to the reason why we should let anyone in, not just those who can afford to pay off the right people to get their documents processed quicker. If you have enough money you can get in pretty quick, not exactly the United States I believe in, one where money = freedom. And I have always agreed with that - having a more sensical program for bringing in people to work and eventually become citizens. That, however, is not the same as saying everyone and anyone can come in at will. Again, I think even you would have to admit that there HAVE to be controls, or the consequences would be dire. Therefore, I wish you would stop speaking in absolutes, and talk in terms of reality - there has to be a line, there have to be controls, so where and how do we implement them?[/ b] Let everyone come in as long as they are not wanted felon, etc. (I can make an exception for criminals). As soon as they enter the US they are given SS#, etc. They are required to pay taxes, like the rest of Americans. At the end of every year the numbers are looked at. If at any point in the future there becomes good cause to restrict access or to further tailor the program, you make those decisions when they are necessary. I'd be OK with changing it to be that children born to people who are in the country illegally do not gain citizenship. Seems pretty fair to me. Depends on how you interpret fair. Why should the child be theoretically punished for the actions of the parents? Seems unfair to the child. Well, there is a radical element saying we should indeed close down the borders, or certain borders anyway. Not in this forum though, at least so far. And those are the people who are more likely to be motivated by racism. And this is the first step towards that end goal. I dont for a second believe that this is where they want it to end. It is my people's duty to prevent this. It is the duty of all people who have been persecuted by a govt. to stand together to make sure that their govt does not persecute others. We are supposed to be the county where people can come to have a better life. how is this different than any other standard the government arbitrarily sets? I think issues involving citizenship and issues involving say, me being forced to buy health insurance, are a little different. And i'm asking you, why is that such a big deal? It's like arguing that the government has the power to determine the age requirements of the President. "Well if you allow that to happen, then the whole thing falls apart!" GMAB. It isnt, which is why I fight the govt on a considerable amount of issues. Its the reason why conservatives dislike me, because I actually dislike govt power. I dont pick and chose when I like it. "Its okay for the govt to tell some one they cant marry" "Its not okay for the govt to tell me I cant own a guy" "Its okay for the govt to tell me what drugs I can use" Fair and logical. I don't even know how that doesn't make sense. And for reference, since everyone always loves comparing us to our friends in Europe, jus soli is not observed by most European countries nor many other "western" nations. Yeah just as fair and logically as the guy who in 1930 Germany stated: "Why should we be letting the Jews own land and have property. They arent "citizens", why should they have the same rights as us!" I said I wouldnt do it, but Im sorry I have to. If we do not remember, we will be doomed to repeat. On September 15, 1935 Germany passed the Reich Citizenship Law. 1. A citizen of the Reich is that subject only who is of German or kindred blood and who, through his conduct, shows that he is both desirous and fit to serve the German people and Reich faithfully. It seemed logical at the time, Germany was suffering the worst depression ever, German money was worthless. German resources were scarce, if they shared them with everyone, there wouldnt have been enough for the Germans. Germany was only created in the late 19th century, so most Jews who were born in Germany, had parents who were not "citizens". Therefore they were illegal immigrants. The Germans couldnt have been expected to provide for all of these "illegal Jewish immigrants." Shouldnt Germany have the right to protect its citizens and to ensure that the "illegals" werent taking money out of the German social programs. 1930 Germany was one of the most socially and scientifically advanced nations in the world. If it can happen there, it can happen here. If we do not remain vigilante in protecting those who can not otherwise protect themselves, we have failed. I know that people will say that its not comparable, but in 1935 this is what was happening. In 1935 these were the exact same arguments for why Jews should be treated differently.

Well city upon a hill is one of the most famous statements made by John Winthrop. The purpose of the speech was to basically tell those on his ship that while they were escaping from persecution in the Old World, it would be up to them to set the precedent of what would be the new world. That everyone would be watching them, and if they failed, it would be proof of their gods failure. In time the US has become the city upon the hill in terms of freedom. We are the longest standing modern republic. We are the precursor to the French revolution. We are the country who stands for the idea that people can be free and it can work. If the US was to fail, it would support the idea that you can not be free like the US. That you have to be a country where the govt restricts freedom in order to succeed. Its probably one of the most influential phrases in American history and has been used by both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Its just a very powerful image, that the US was founded on this idea that we were going to be the model for the rest of the world, the city that they could all look to. So as for the time period (and I dont even understand the relevance of the question) it would be 1776 through present. While there have been some bumps in the road, the United States has stood as a govt. for the people and by the people. And some times we make mistakes, but I hope that w e learn from them, and make sure that they are never repeated. That is all we can do.

Right and what is the purpose of this? To prevent more "undesirable" people from entering the US, from becoming citizens, from turning America into something "they" dont want. The problem I have is that this is nothing more than a pretext for racism. And if you let them have the first step, where does it end? Im not going to invoke any of the historical slippery slope arguments, because I think we already know them. I will never support any sort of law that denies entry to the United States based on the fact that "they" are from some where else. I will never support any amendment to the constitution that puts up artificial barriers for "them" to become citizens. I only exist today because there were others before me who showed the same compassion as I am willing to show. At one time or another, all of us were "them", the ones that the people who were already here wanted to keep out. They didnt want immigrants from Ireland, they didnt want Eastern Europeans, they didnt want Jews, they didnt want XYZ, for ABC reason. But some, those who were true Americans, accepted us. They realized that the idea of America was bigger than their own personal gain, bigger than hoping that they had the biggest log cabin or the most beautiful horse, that America was about giving everyone a chance, a chance to be somewhere that they could be free. So while it may seem like a "small" change, to me it is a major shift in the entire idea of America. That every time people have tried to alter the constitution to limit the freedoms of "others" the US courts have stood in strong opposition. Whether it was the Chinese in California, the Irish/Jews/Italians in NY, the Mexicans in California/Texas/etc. Those who are born on our soil are no different than me. I am not in the business of digging up the past. They came to America for a reason, to be some where that their children could have a better life. I hope that I can help provide that child with a better life. And the best way for me to be able to do that, is to allow that child full rights as a citizen. But then again, I dont believe that the US should have artificial quotas or try and restrict immigration. I believe that as long as the person wants to come to the US, agrees to follow the laws of the US and is willing to pay taxes, etc., that they should be allowed in the US and eventually be allowed to be citizens. When times are tough, that is when it is the easiest to turn on "others". It is out of times of despair that the darkest moments in human history have occurred. We can not let our own despair turn us, we must rise above it. The United States is unique. We are an experiment. It is up to use to prevent the experiments failure. We can not go down this road, it is my belief that we must go the opposite way. We must allow more immigration, we must allow easier paths to citizenship, we must get rid of this antiquated idea of "illegal alien". We are all people. We all just want the opportunity to have the best life possible. I refuse to take part in any scheme, plot or movement to restrict some one else's ability to have that similar opportunity. Everyone in the world deserves the same chance as me. If they want to come to the US, I welcome them, I hope that they succeed.

Unfortunately the contract would be subject to the CBA, so if under the CBA there was a clause that allowed for the nullification of the contract, there would be no good argument that the contract supercedes the CBA. Dealing with CBA stuff is a lot different than general contract law because the contract itself is subject the interpretation of the CBA. Its some what like a contract that is signed, but then is deemed illegal. IE I enter into a contract with Steve whereby he will be my hoe and I will be his pimp. Pursuant to the contract Steve is to be paid $10 for each trick he turns. Steve turns 100 tricks in a 2 night crystal meth induced frenzy. When he wakes up 2 days later he asks me to be paid. I refuse to pay him. He sues me for breach of contract. The court could declare the contract invalid due to public policy (its illegal to contract for sex or to contract for then commission of a crime) and therefore Steve could not collect on the contract. That being said, I would expect the league to use common sense when dealing with this issue, which means not digging up the past. (I know the example wasnt necessary, but I felt it added some spice)

People should be granted citizenship just because they are born here. People should be able to build a Mosque next to the site of the Twin Towers. (eventhough its not really next to the site) We once were a city upon a hill, where we were the model of free society. But we inch closer to being nothing more than what we allegedly despise. Everyone who is born in America, deserves to be a citizen. But then again I believe the the idea of America was to be a place where those who are persecuted, those who seek a better life, would be free to join whenever they please. I dont agree with immigration quotas, I dont agree with refusing to allow people to come to America to seek a better life. Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" I understand that people want to have advantages and not let other people immigrate here and potentially compete with them for jobs and benefits. But is that not the American way? Are we not capitalists? Do we not believe in competition and that the hardest and best working will rise to the top? To me that is America. And it actually bothers me to see that people can claim to care about freedom, equality, etc. but at the same time do everything in their power to prevent all people from having that.

Well your almost never going to get 4x the performance from one player as compared to another. Even the best and worst pitchers generally only have a difference of 3-4 earned runs a game. No way will Jackson put up a 1.0 era while Hudson has a 4, so if that is what your criteria is, there will be no way Jackson can ever meet those standards. Conversely if the criteria is: Did we get a better player? Then the trade is a win. Hopefully for Hudson something clicked after being traded and he can become a quality major league pitcher. But prior to the trade (and that is all that matters when evaluating what the Sox could have gotten), Hudson was not exactly a piece people were banging down the door for. Nationals didnt really want him, Arizona liked Jackson more (otherwise they would have jumped all over a Hudson/Jackson swap) and my guess is that Kenny tried numerous other teams. The idea of parsing starts to reach some sort of conclusion is strange. Im happy the Sox have Jackson. If they make the playoffs his stuff will give them a chance to win games. Doesnt mean he wont get hit some days or innings, just he has the ability to dominate.

Soxbadger- Soxbadger I havent picked up the game but should have it tomorrow (tonight I watch the Sox v Twins).

Oh I know, I just want to show how ridiculous its all become. (That was to lostfan) If you care about something you dont give up, no matter how bleak it may seem. The same reason I dont hate on the White Sox, is the same reason that Ill always try and make this place better(at least whats better imo). Id rather be the last one left, then wonder if I could have done a little more.

You dont have to worry. Many of the people have moved on or at least to different forums on this message board. So Ill just go back to being a ghost, while the rest of you can have what has become a pity party. Its not difficult to be negative, its really easy. You win no matter what. If the team sucks, youre right, if the team wins, you say that it won despite your complaints. Its a no lose situation. Its a lot harder to actually be positive and believe. If they blow a game like today or 2 days ago, youve got nothing to hide behind. You dont have a thread where you can say that they would have won if only the Sox had listened to you. You dont get to take solace in how much "smarter" you are than the current owner, GM or manager. Football and basketball are starting soon, you can find me in those threads. They are far more bearable. Id rather listen to fans who are overly confident and think their teams walk on water, then listening to a fans who have a first place team and find something new to harp on every day. The mere fact some one would want another poster to leave just saddens me. I may not agree with certain people, I may have thought certain posters in the past were dumber than a rock, but I dont think I have ever wanted another poster to leave some where that they enjoyed. Anyway, dont worry, Ill tow the company line or just keep my mouth shut. No need to earn myself a warning for being positive and optimistic and trying to enjoy the White Sox, instead of always finding something negative to say.