Who Would Jesus Deport?

Subject: RE: Who/ Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 06:04 PM

Whomsoever.

Subject: RE: Who/ Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 05:58 PM

Whomever you please, I should think.

Subject: RE: Who/ Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: maeve
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 05:57 PM

To whom shall we direct our use of whom?

maeve... perhaps 100

Subject: RE: Who/ Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 05:44 PM

"Whom" is a wonderful word. We need to see it in use much more often, I think. ;-)

Subject: RE: Who/ Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 05:38 PM

The quick check is to invert the sentence and substitute he/him. Would Jesus deport he or deport him? Who=he; whom=him.

What this proves is that you are all flipping pedants!

Subject: RE: Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM

"Whom" goes with the direct object. "Who" goes with the subject. The verb is deport, and Jesus is doing it.

Subject: RE: Who/Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 05:02 PM

Interestingly, it is not possible to post a response without "correcting" the modified thread title, which now contains html code (for the strikethough).

LH, Giok and I have each used different approaches to solving this problem.

Subject: RE: Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 05:02 PM

I can readily see that you wouldn't think he was "God" or "the Son of God", etc, GIOK, but what on Earth makes you so sure that he never existed?

I mean, I can see how it would probably comfort and please you in some respect if that were indeed so, because then you'd be right (HUZZA! Break out the champagne!) and many, many others would be wrong...but how can you be so sure about it? Your faith that he never existed strikes me as akin to that of a fundamentalist, only the exact opposite way around. ;-)

Subject: Who /;Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:48 PM

Can't be deported by someone who never existed LH, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
Like Pontius Pilate, [allegedly] I always wash my hands afterwards!
G.

Subject: RE: Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:43 PM

Jesus would deport GIOK!!!!!   

(giggling and running away madly...)

Subject: RE: Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:37 PM

Thanks for the quick edit to the thread title!

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM

That makes at least three separate postings to this thread in which someone has made this particular grammatical correction ("whom" not "who").

Read the dang thread first, please! ;^)

Well, OK, I know it's become quite long and it'd be hard to read every word...

Perhaps Joe/joeclone might edit the title to satisfy all grammarians and put them at ease...

PS, Giok: Being an atheist does not disqualify one from this discussion. Even the OP himself, GUEST,Steve Baughman, explicitly professes atheism, FWIW.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:10 PM

Or: Who would deport Jesus?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:03 PM

I haven't joined in on this one as I'm an atheist, but the title annoys the hell out of me.

WHOM would Jesus Deport   Puleeeeeeze

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 03:51 PM

I believe that's Pilate, Red, unless he was a commercial ship-handler before he got into politics...


A

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Mr Red
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 03:46 PM

Who would JC deport? Pontius Pilot of course.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 03:44 PM

Oh, and by the way, it isn't "a myriad of." It's just "myriad." (SRS)

Merriam-Webster's online:
Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 02:25 PM

I believe that undocumented workers are not the only ones undercounted in the unemployment stats.

While I have understood all along that the numbers are not "officially" restricted to those receiving benefits, I would still contend that a fair number of those unemployed folks who are ineligible for benefits ~ and there are quite a few ~ are indeed omitted from the official unemployment figures. Not strictly because of their ineligibility for benefits; it's just that such individuals are the most likely to "fall though the cracks" and not to be counted, for any number of different reasons. Many are probably never counted.

Not a huge number, but probably enough to throw off the official numbers by a couple-or-three percentage points, if not more.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 12:59 PM

Not exactly. From the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving unemployment insurance benefits?

   No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households. All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work are included among the unemployed. (People on temporary layoff are included even if they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey.

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for work?

   Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release.

Are undocumented immigrants counted in the surveys?

   Neither the establishment nor household survey is designed to identify the legal status of workers. Thus, while it is likely that both surveys include at least some undocumented immigrants, it is not possible to determine how many are counted in either survey. The household survey does include questions about whether respondents were born outside the United States. Data from these questions show that foreign-born workers accounted for about 15 percent of the labor force in 2006 and about 47 percent of the net increase in the labor force from 2000 to 2006.

My own opinion would be that undocumented ("illegal") workers are significantly undercounted because of their (justifiable) fear of the consequences of disclosing their presence.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 12:45 PM

"...some labor economists will say that 5% is the "natural" level of unemployment, reflecting those who are between jobs voluntarily, those who are active looking and those who have unofficially taken themselves out of the job market."

In the US, as I understand it, unemployment statistics include only those eligible to collect unemployment benefits, i.e., those who had a job (an "above-ground" job) until recently, and whose terminiation was not voluntary AND not due to their own malfeasance.

People fired for cause, people whose recent employment history has been in the invisible/underground economy, and people who have not worked at all during the past year or so, are NOT reflected in unemployment statistics.

5% unemployment may indeed be "natural," and it is, after all, a pretty low figure. But it does not include all the categories of unemployed individuals implied above.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 12:12 PM

This would be, of course, depriving individuals who were born in the United States and are therefore US citizens, under the provisions of Article XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution, of their right to equal rights and protection. Fat chance.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 11:16 AM

"off spring of the illegals" - charming use of language. Not too surprised really.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 10:35 AM

People are finally beginning to realize that illegal immigration is part of the corporatocracy:


                               http://blip.tv/file/520347

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 08:01 AM

Guest Steve - Great, glad to hear McCain got booed on the immigration issue in Michigan. I hope he gets trounced there.
                Illegal immigration in certainly not good for me. I would happily pay a little more for fuits and vegetables (though I think the farms would quickly mechanize, and I wouldn't have to do that) than see hospitals close because they could no longer afford to run the emergency rooms, and see schools swamped with the off spring of the illegals.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 12:26 AM

Did y'all hear John McCain get booed the other day when he spoke out against wholesale deportations and in favor of compassion???

As much as I don't like him, he's got a heart on immig.

"Sure illegal immigration is good for the board of directors of the Holiday Inn, but it's not good for me, or anyone I know." Well, I'm not on any board of directors, but I sure benefit, and you probably do too, if you live in the US and buy fruit, eat in restaurants, call out for home delivery meals, stay in hotels sometimes, have your house cleaned, hire gardeners, etc etc.

sb

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:32 PM

Come unto me all who are weary and burdened, I shall give you rest (Matt: 11:28)

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 05:57 PM

That was good, Sal!

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 05:17 PM

His Dad, for not being there on his big day!

Sal

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:11 PM

Well, I suggest that he would get quite tough with lobbyists, bankers, credit card companies, health insurance outfits, and various other people like that who are letting their search for profits royally screw up the rest of society and ruin millions of people's lives.

The moneylenders, in other words...

He would advise them to distribute their excess wealth to those less fortunate.

That's when they would hire someone to kill him.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 03:12 PM

He objected to the moneylenders who were set up in the entranceways of the temple, I believe. That might be a contexual distinction, but we are parrying groundless hypotheticals in any case.


A

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 03:07 PM

Since Jesus didn't like the money lenders, it seems to me that he would deport the bankers. Seems like banks are making huge profits at the expense of everyone. He'd probably ban credit cards at the same time.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:33 PM

"Cheap labor Stateside is aa lot moe expensive, and also generates tax revenues and contributions to the SS pot..."

               Very little. A lot of these people are paid cash under the table, and no tax at all is generated. Besides, even the ones who are taxed cost a lot more in public services, so in the end, the country would be better off to simply export the jobs.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:28 PM

Au contraire. Cheap labor Stateside is aa lot moe expensive, and also generates tax revenues and contributions to the SS pot -- both good reasons for making it easier for such to become legal.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:23 PM

It seems like the same thing to me. You either import cheap labor to the job, or you export the job to cheap labor.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:21 PM

I have yet to see evidence that immigrant labor drives wages into the toilet.

I submit that globalization has probably done far more in this regard.


And it is not the same thing at all.

A

Subject: RE: Whom Would Jesus Deport?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 01:35 PM

Pedantic note - "whom", not "who".
.................................

Maybe America would be a better place in some ways if they'd never had any of these immigrants come in. But it's a few centuries too late to turn back the Pilgrim Fathers and suchlike.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:23 PM

Actually, the unemployment rate just went up, and if you're at the bottom of the pay scale, a five percent reduction would be hard to take. So while the article is probably right about that, it still hurts the same people.

                Futher, I think there is a lot of evidence that this is a world wide problem. Europe is having to deal with many of the same issues North America is.

                But I would disagree completely with Guest Steve. I think many element of legal immigration, almost all illegal immigration is counter productive to the greater society. It looks to me like he is just tooting the "corporate-globalist" horn here. Sure illegal immigration is good for the board of directors of the Holiday Inn, but it's not good for me, or anyone I know.

                Steve's last point, however, makes a lot of sense, unless you listen to John McCain who says the war is going well. But in the end, if the economy continues to slide, a lot more people will become aware of the downside of immigration.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:59 PM

Thanks for bringing that article up. I'd say immig not only has a small effect on wages, it has a small negative effect on any aspect of our lives. And the positives are huge. Look at how immig, legal and illegal (we can rarely tell the difference), affects us positively, all the folks in restaurants, hotels, strawberry fields, our homes, local cultural centers, doing work and producing things that benefit us.

Let's face it, illegals are being exploited as whipping boys and girls for cynical politicians. Is it REALLY that hard to believe that politicians would do such a thing? Especially when Iraq and the economy are not going real well.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:13 PM

There is an interesting article in this week's ECONOMIST. Many of us in the US believe (erroneously) that migration is strictly an American problem, and this article discusses the issue on a more global scale. One of the conclusions it reaches, and this is in a section focusing directly on the problems being faced in the US, is that illegal migration has a very small (5% or less) effect on wages, and that is only at the lower end of the pay scale. Unemployment is presently at 4.7% and some labor economists will say that 5% is the "natural" level of unemployment, reflecting those who are between jobs voluntarily, those who are active looking and those who have unofficially taken themselves out of the job market.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:15 PM

Well, not entirely. Huckabee wants to change the "birthright citizenship" thing. That way the kids wouldn't be citizens at all, and the entire family could go back to Mexico together. Huckabee always was a family kind of guy.

            Also, we should probably consider the pain inflicted on this side of the border when immigrants come in and drive wages into the toilet.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:16 PM

If we want to be hard asses, fine, but let's recognize the suffering this inflicts on good, hard working people, many who have US citizen family here.

In Calif, where I live, we've had more than our share of conservatives wanting to kick kids out of public schools because their papers aren't in order, tear families apart by deporting the parents of US citizen kids, deny health care to the sick, etc etc etc. I'd like to see the immigration debate consider that we inflict a lot of suffering when we adopt Romney-esque, Giullani-esque, Huckabee-esque, Hunter-esque, and Republican-esque policies.

My hope is that we keep the "human" side of immigration policy in mind.

Surely we can ALL agree on that, no?

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:09 PM

JEsus Ramirez Gonzalez Ramon Garcia, of course. Woddya think?



A

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: bankley
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:45 PM

Jesus who ?

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:34 AM

We spent hundreds of millions on compensating Iraqi families for having spent hundreds of billions shooting up their country and wiping out a lot of their relatives. All in a good cause, of course. But it seems to me probable that with what they contribute in the taxes they pay and the low cost labor they provide, we may not be facing as large a problem as we are making out to have. I'd like to know what the hard numbers are, but its an invisible economy, I suppose.


A

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:21 AM

Well, Guest Steve, I think you've hit the nail on the head. If we look at what is best for the planet, we would be interested in decreasing the size of the "human footprint," I would think. The best way to do that would be to intervene in human migration around the globe, so we are not encouraging people to move from hopelessly overpopulated areas to places that are not-quite-yet overpopulated. And work on saving wilderness, oceans, wild and sea life, organic farming and etc.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:19 PM

"Immigartion is a real problem and real problems aren't solved with easy answers..."

How about this, EVEN IF immigration were a "real problem" for U.S. citizens, by what right may we pass laws to exclude folks from the richest agricultural terrain on the planet and keep it for ourselves? (Especially given that we stole it ourselves.)

I would like to see the immigration debate address THIS fundamental issue. It's NOT just about what policies are best for the haves. It's what's best for the planet.

Or so it seems to me.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 08:41 PM

Immigartion is a real problem and real problems aren't solved with easy answers...

This is going to take the wisdom of a bipartisan comission that is entrusted in finding solutions, much like the 9/11 Commission...

I firmly believe that when we put elder statesman together that these folks can cut thru the political posturing and come up with something that we can all live with...

The challenge is for the rest of US to live with what they come up with...

No one is goin' to get everything they want here, folks... No one...

But to do nothin' is irresposible...

B~

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Greg B
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 08:09 PM

Most of the members of the USCCB, as far as I can tell. In
company with their spokespersons and chancellors.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 07:15 PM

Yes, they were refugees. Quite common at the time.

Subject: RE: Who Would Jesus Deport?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 07:12 PM

Jesus? That was a refugee family wasn't it? Illegal immigrants in Egypt because of some problem with King Herod back in Judea. Ended up needing to be terminated with extreme prejudice by the Roman Peacekeepers after rendition from the Civil Authorities.

That sort always seem to get into trouble.