Poll: Public Wants Illegals to Go Home

[GaryC 7]

Profiteers who could not care less about Tthe U.S. and it's citizenry hasve an incessant need/desire for cheap, unregulated and easily exploitable labor ...

There, Steven. I completed the point you were looking to make to fit it better into reality. Now, given that reality, no amount of work visas and no amnesty is going to change that. In other words, whatever you do in terms of providing "cheap" labor, it ain't gonna be cheap enough and profiteers will look for ways to fulfill their desire to shamelessly exploit other human beings beyond what's legally possible. Those here legally are not the prey these profiteers are looking for. You gotta lock them up and seize their illegal profits which they gained by exploiting fellow human beings. That is how you re-establish fairness in the labor market and as a welcome side-effect, illegal immigration will become a non-issue. No jobs for illegals = no illegal migrants.

I am glad we have found a subject that we totally agree with! It's all about allowing the profiteers to continue to exploit the illegals. It seems that Steven, Gupt and Alex have fallen on the side of big business. It seems they want to let the business that employ the illegals to continue to exploit them. You and I want it to stop and they want to continue to enable the profiteers. Kind of ironic isn't it?

[GaryC 7]

Come on we are a little complicit - I mean - we haven't elected public representatives who have taken any sort of strong position on this issue. I mean has a candidate's stance on illegal immigration been a deciding factor in any of the last presidential elections?

When I look at a candidate their immigration stand is one thing that I look at. Unfortunately the candidate I choose either didn't win, failed to keep his promise or was out voted by others. The president has very little to do with making immigration law. All he has is the bully pulpit and can either sign the law given or veto it. The power here lies with the congress. This is very much a failure of congress both dem and rep. Trust me, when the next election comes the stand the various candidates take on immigration will be near the top of the list of issues I use to choose who to vote for. Unfortunately for me I have Oboma and Durbin for my senators and Lahood for my congressman. They are entrenched and have very little chance of being voted out.

[peejay 327]

Cheap labor is only cheap to the employer. To the social support systems, they are costly because they get sick, commit crimes, reproduce and want to be educated. When they become legalized (please God, no!) they will also want even more of what you have. If you have actually paid attention to what is in this new legislative "compromise", it's clear that our elected representatives are willing to give them MORE than we have because too many of us are asleep at the wheel and have been for too long.

How many of you have expressed your views to your federal and state representatives re this issue? I have, plenty, and will continue to!

Very well said.. It is a joke to be honest. We have so may people in the US barely making ends meet yet a small minority and the rich are actually suggesting we allow all of these illegal immigrants to remain here permanently.

Nonetheless, Are the pro amnesty congress members and the president proposing any measures to prevent this from happening again in the future, if amnesty is given after all?

Will they dramatically increase the fines and propose possible jail time for managers / directors who employ illegal immigrants?

Will they actually secure the borders?

Will they reform immigration? For example, America is one of few developed nations where someone young cannot even come here on a working holiday..

Will they throw out and/or jail repeat immigration offenders?

Here is a synopsis of the latest joke the US Senate wants to drop on the American people (S.1348) (aka:Kennedy / McCain):

BACKGROUND: On May 17, Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), and other Senate and White House negotiators announced that they had reached agreement on a “compromise” immigration bill. The final text of the bill was made available to Senators and their staff on Monday, the same day the Senate began debating the proposed legislation. Under the proposal:

▪All illegal aliens who claim to have been in the United States since January 1, 2007 would have up to two years to appear at an U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office, drop off a completed application for a “Z” visa, pay a $1,000 fine (plus $500 for each spouse, child, and parent living here illegally with them) and submit their fingerprints. USCIS would attempt to check their fingerprints against one or more criminal databases and, as long as fewer than three misdemeanors and no felonies showed up within 24 hours, USCIS would be required to grant them “probationary” amnesty in the form of a work permit and legal permission to remain in the United States until their Z visa application was adjudicated.

▪In case one amnesty is not sufficient, the proposal also includes both the DREAM Act amnesty for illegal aliens who graduate from U.S. high schools and the AgJOBS amnesty for 1.5 million illegal alien agricultural workers.

▪The employers of these newly amnestied aliens also would receive amnesty under the proposal. They would not be subject to fines or prosecution either for hiring the illegal aliens or for any tax fraud committed as a result.

▪Issuance of the Z visas, along with a new category of “Y” temporary foreign workers visas (see below), would be put on hold until the Secretary of Homeland Security could certify to the President that a series of “triggers” had been met:

□Customs and Border Protection must have hired (not trained or deployed) a total of 18,000 Border Patrol agents;

□The Department of Homeland Security must have installed 370 miles of border fence (about half the total miles of fencing required by the law passed by Congress and signed by the President at the end of the last Congress), along with some vehicle barriers and radar and camera towers, and deployed at least four unmanned aerial vehicles;

□Immigration and Customs Enforcement must have 27,500 detention beds (the number it has now) and DHS must continue to detain removable aliens apprehended along the southern border;

□DHS must have the tools to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining jobs, including the establishment of (though not the widespread use of) identification standards (presumably like those required by past laws, including the REAL ID Act) and an electronic work eligibility verification system (like the Basic Pilot); and

□USCIS must be “processing and adjudicating in a timely manner” Z visa applications (since these are not supposed to be issued until the triggers are met, apparently, USCIS would be deciding them and saving them for later issuance).

So the triggers DO NOT require that DHS have operational control of the border; they do NOT require that DHS comply with the law and build the all of the fence; they do NOT require that DHS implement the exit system that would allow us to know if "guest workers" actually leave, even though it has been in the law since 1996; they do NOT require work site enforcement; and they DO NOT require that DHS increase its apprehension rate or its alien absconder removal rate.

▪Once the Secretary made the certification that the triggers had been met, USCIS would have to issue millions of Z visas within a six-month period because all “probationary” status would expire six months after issuance began. (If the certifications were never made because the triggers were never met, thus preventing issuance of the Z visas, the probationary status would remain valid indefinitely until Congress or the Administration took action.

▪The new Y-visa guestworker program would also kick in upon certification that the triggers had been met. This program allows U.S. employers to import up to 200,000 (it was 400,000 before Senator Bingaman successfully amended the bill) low-skilled foreign workers to fill American jobs in industries like construction, landscaping, and services. These workers would be allowed to come for up to three two-year periods, as long as they agreed not to bring their families and went home for one year in between each period. If they wanted to bring their families for one two-year period, they would be prohibited from coming for more than two two-year periods. (Since we have no exit system to ensure that temporary workers or their families leave when they are supposed to, and since the bill requires only that DHS submit a plan to eventually implement one, these workers and their families could simply stay illegally.)

▪The bill also purports to end chain migration by eliminating the visa categories for siblings and adult children. First, however, it proposes clearing the waiting list of such relatives by increasing family-based permanent immigration by 440,000 each year until the more than six million individuals who have been on the waiting list since May of 2005 have been accommodated.

▪Once all those on the waiting list for the chain migration categories have been granted green cards, all the millions of amnestied Z visa holders would become eligible to apply for green cards. Z visa holders would be required to drop off their green card applications at a U.S. consular office in their home country (or in any other country where the consular officials chose to accept the applications regardless of nationality of the applicant, a choice left to the discretion of the consular offices under the bill). DHS would collect another $4,000 from each head of household, check that they are learning some English and that they have paid their taxes, but only since they were legalized. Those Z visa holders who declined the offer of a green card could simply renew their Z visa every four years for as long as they wanted to remain in the United States.

▪Rather than the current employment-based visa preference categories, the bill would create a “merit system,” which would assign points to applicants for green cards based on their skills, education, English ability, and the presence of relatives in the United States. In the first five years under the bill, the number of visas in this system would be almost double the current number of employment-based visas.

▪The bill also includes three titles of enforcement provisions—one on border enforcement, one on interior enforcement, and one on work place enforcement. These provisions are virtually meaningless, however, unless the administration is willing to enforce them. The Bush Administration has demonstrated its unwillingness to enforce current law, so it seems overly optimistic to expect that, after they get their amnesty and new foreign worker programs, that they would suddenly see the value in enforcing any new immigration control measures.

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/senateaction0507.html

Peejay sez this is nothing more than the same old slick sick trick joke of 1986. Massive amnesty (with guestworker program thrown in) up front and pie-in-the-sky promises of enforcement tools to eventually implement enforcement of the laws passed. How gullible are you? It is a massive reward for illegal aliens and the corporate crooks that continue to employ them. It does nothing for a vast majority of the American people (except screw us royally).

[GaryC 7]

Peejay sez this is nothing more than the same old slick sick trick joke of 1986. Massive amnesty (with guestworker program thrown in) up front and pie-in-the-sky promises of enforcement tools to eventually implement enforcement of the laws passed. How gullible are you? It is a massive reward for illegal aliens and the corporate crooks that continue to employ them. It does nothing for a vast majority of the American people (except screw us royally).

You are totally correct. This is just the 1986 amnesty bill recycled. We all see how well that worked! We cannot trust Washington to follow through with the securing of the borders after the amnesty has been granted. All this stupid bill will do is the same thing it did 20 years ago. Allow the illegals to stay and invite even more of the criminal behavior to continue. The only sane thing to do is insist that the illegals go home by drying up the jobs, secure the border and then after that is done start a guest worker program.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally

And you are prepared to deal with the economically disruptive effects of doing so? You are prepared to uproot families that have been here for years, including the lives of young children?

Either you don't realize the impact of what you're suggesting, or....

Yes I am. It's not my problem that they have been here illegally so long that they have roots. Just because they have gotten away with it for years does not forgive the crime. They should go home. All of them. Then we can institute a guest worker program and they can come back.

I have two problems with that.

1. By letting them in (loose to non-existent border controls) and letting them stay (by not having stronger employer sanctions to begin with, by allowing Mexican consular cards, etc.), this country is complicit in their crime. That means you, I, Steven, all of us. We're complicit by the very fact that we enabled them. To punish them now is shameless political scapegoating.

2. To uproot families the way you are describing is immoral.

You complicity argument doesn't fly. These things are not within my control or yours. It's like claiming that I am somehow complicit in the Enron accounting scandal since I willingly consumed energy. Talking about Enron: Is it also immoral to cut these guys off their illegal profits seeing that they were pretty used to them?

If you insist that you are not complicit, then I hope you can agree that the Federal Government has been, and is. They enabled this mass illegal migration of people for so long, do you really think it is just for the same Federal Government to now send them packing? I don't think it is.

BTW - you are complicit. We all are. They cook in almost every restaurant, they clean in almost every office building, they pick the grapes you eat and build the homes you live in. You don't have to have played an active role in arranging all this to be complicit. You are, we all are.

1) Yes, I actually think it is just for the same federal gov't to send them packing. Do you think the government would be justified in ending a tax evasion scheme that has gone on for years or should the gov't just let the tax cheats keep their loot and let them continue to evade taxes seeing that they've been able to defraud the gov't for a long time?

2) Your complicity argument still doesn't fly. It did not the first time and all you did was repeat the same nonsense. Your argument doesn't gain strength just because you repeat it. Are you complicit in the Enron accounting scandal?

Come on we are a little complicit - I mean - we haven't elected public representatives who have taken any sort of strong position on this issue. I mean has a candidate's stance on illegal immigration been a deciding factor in any of the last presidential elections?

Unfortunately, I do not set the agenda for Presidential or Congressional campaigns. Nor do I have the kind of funds it takes these days to infuence candidates and representatives in any way. Now, the governmental system in the US was corrupted by money when I got here. Am I complicit in allowing the corrupt system of government to continue? To the extend that I am not organizing a revolution to throw out all the bought rubberstamps in Congress, yes, I am guilty as charged. Shame on me for not being the revolutionary that I need to be.

Does that mean that I need to support an amnesty that big money is looking to purchase from Congress? No, it absolutely does not. Does my failure to organize a revolution mean that those that broke our laws should not only get a "get out of jail free" card but also entitle them to a practically indefinite work visa that no law abiding alien will ever be eligible for? I most certainly don't think so.

Edited May 28, 2007 by ET-US2004

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I meant by legalizing/decriminalizing drugs it would bring it out in the open so it can be regulated. Cheap, low skilled labor is a commodity and like drugs, most of the cheap labor is coming from outside this country illegally.

The conventional definition of a free market capitalist is one who opposes restrictions or regulations on the market. Milton Friedman believed the market would regulate itself through competition and consumer choice is the main driving force. That's why corporations will buy out the competition - to circumvent consumer choice. Do you have a different definition?

As for NAFTA and the influx of immigration - here's just one POV from Economist's View (Hardly a Liberal Slant):

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis..._and_illeg.html

Mexico has shed nearly 30% of its farm jobs since the trade pact went into effect, according to government statistics. That translates into 2.8 million farmers and millions more of their dependents fleeing their fields. Some have taken subsistence jobs in Mexico's cities, but many have relocated to the U.S. ....

NAFTA experts say negotiators from Mexico and the U.S. knew that rural families ... would be hard hit by the trade deal. The bet was that many of them would find work in Mexico's burgeoning maquiladora export factories. But ... Mexico has lost more than four times as many farm jobs over the last 12 years as it gained in export manufacturing positions, in part because of relentless competition from China...

You make the mistake of assuming there is a link between Trade Pacts and Illegal immigration, when if anything the loss of agricultural jobs is because of technology and economic development. When the American South was largely agrarian there was a need for cheap labor—from slaves, share croppers, child labor, to migrant immigrants (legal or undocumented), but eventually sectors in the American South developed new economies such as textile mills, light industrial, to skilled and service industries, the need for as much cheap labor in the agricultural market sector dropped. There was not a single trade treaty that suddenly caused the end of farming jobs.

As far as your reference to the drug policy and how we should make the immigration policy similar you still are in error. For you state that the Drug policy should be decriminalized and put out in the open and then regulated. But in fact there are ample laws, regulations, and policies in effect that are regulating the drug trade, and in your correlation to the immigration policy—we all know the scope of rules, regulations and policies that exist with the visa process. Immigration is out in the open--its not illlegal to immigrate to the USA--its illegal to immigrate illegally. Just as its not illegal for me to take my blood pressure medicine--but it is illegal for me to take the medicine without a perscription.

But even in an “open” market there is and will be those that will try and circumvent any regulation or measures taken. This is why there are black and gray markets in areas where trade in a commodity is regulated. From market manipulation in creating artificial shortages in energy, to selectively not harvesting or slaughtering livestock to manipulate the price, to hiring undocumented workers to reduce payroll tax, wage, and benefit cost, to the smuggling by tourist of prescription drugs from Mexico and Canada, to counterfeit/pirated software, books, and music, why even moon shiners continue to produce alternatives to the out in the open alcohol market.

But I suppose if you did decriminalize the illicit drug trade then a lot of the South American and Asian illegal immigrants might return to their countries of birth--as certainly there would be huge amount of work in the agricultural sector to produce coca leaf, cannabis, and opium.

Thanks for the well thought out response - something this board is often short on when it comes to rebuttal.

The numbers tell the story. Of course we've always had illegal immigration coming from Mexico, but since the inception of NAFTA, we have experienced a huge influx of immigration and on the other side of the border as indicated in that article, many farms have run aground. We can argue over to the exact causes and effects or point the finger, but the fact doesn't change that millions of Mexicans have fled the countryside because of economic reasons.

I hope you read the full article, but if you didn't, here's some other points about the structure and goals of NAFTA...

Consider the landmark NAFTA agreement. Proponents point to the nearly threefold leap in trade between the United States and Mexico as proof of the pact's success. ... Yet the agreement has yielded little in the way of net job creation or in helping to build the vibrant Mexican middle class that supporters promised.

U.S. and Mexican officials touted the deal as a way to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants by creating jobs in Mexico. The tide of undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. surged after the pact was implemented. Fully two-thirds of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States have been there 10 years or less...

Many of those people are Mexicans from hard-hit rural areas, the predictable casualties ... of a trade deal that forced Mexico to wrench open its farm sector without a viable transition strategy for millions of subsistence farmers. ...

Some analysts contend that Mexico simply hasn't moved far enough and fast enough down the free-market path, while botching earlier reforms. Privatizations such as the 1990 sale of the state-owned telephone company essentially replaced public monopolies with private ones. Mexico's inefficient state-owned energy companies are harming its competitiveness. Red tape and corruption are strangling innovation.

But ... others contend that some free-market policies simply haven't delivered and are contributing to the immigration friction... Economists point to a host of demographic, cultural and economic factors fueling the mass migration. But many agree that NAFTA accelerated the decades-long exodus of Mexicans from the countryside by opening the nation's markets wider to subsidized U.S. agriculture products.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis..._and_illeg.html

I don't want to derail the more important points I'm trying to make with my analogy of our Drug policy - but to comment on what you said about immigration being legal - it is also quite inaccessible, particularly for the poor and under-educated, which is kind of ironic when juxtaposed to those famous words on Ellis Island,

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-tossed, to me:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Somewhere along the way of progress, we've taken a few steps backward.

[GaryC 7]

Steven, I think your point is misplaced. The huge influx of illegals is not because of NAFTA it is because of the 1986 amnesty bill. That stupid bill is what opened the flood gates. And now we want to do it again! Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, I think your point is misplaced. The huge influx of illegals is not because of NAFTA it is because of the 1986 amnesty bill. That stupid bill is what opened the flood gates. And now we want to do it again! Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!

Gary, go research the numbers in the years prior to NAFTA. I've never said it's the single cause - just a big factor, not just in terms of numbers, but in destabilizing Mexico's economy. Go look up information on NAFTA - there's a lot of analysis over its successes and failures.

[GaryC 7]

Steven, I think your point is misplaced. The huge influx of illegals is not because of NAFTA it is because of the 1986 amnesty bill. That stupid bill is what opened the flood gates. And now we want to do it again! Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!

Gary, go research the numbers in the years prior to NAFTA. I've never said it's the single cause - just a big factor, not just in terms of numbers, but in destabilizing Mexico's economy. Go look up information on NAFTA - there's a lot of analysis over its successes and failures.

The reasons why they are here isn't my problem. All I care about is getting the gate crashers out of here! Mexico is Mexico's problem. They signed NAFTA. They must live with it's consequences. Everything you try to bring up: bigotry, NAFTA, historical connections ect.. make zero difference to me. All I want is for those who are here contrary to the law to leave. You can rationalize your stance all you want. The fact remains that we have people here that shouldn't be here.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally

And you are prepared to deal with the economically disruptive effects of doing so? You are prepared to uproot families that have been here for years, including the lives of young children?

Either you don't realize the impact of what you're suggesting, or....

Yes I am. It's not my problem that they have been here illegally so long that they have roots. Just because they have gotten away with it for years does not forgive the crime. They should go home. All of them. Then we can institute a guest worker program and they can come back.

I have two problems with that.

1. By letting them in (loose to non-existent border controls) and letting them stay (by not having stronger employer sanctions to begin with, by allowing Mexican consular cards, etc.), this country is complicit in their crime. That means you, I, Steven, all of us. We're complicit by the very fact that we enabled them. To punish them now is shameless political scapegoating.

2. To uproot families the way you are describing is immoral.

I am not complicit in anything. I didn't invite them in, I didn't ask them to stay and I always wanted them to go home. I blame every congress since the 1986 amnesty bill for this mess. You think telling them to stop breaking the law is punishment? Wow, I would like you to judge me if I ever got in trouble. It's not my fault they decided to break the law and bring their families in on the crime.

To your second point. Didn't they "uproot" their families to come here in the first place? Why is it immoral to tell them to do it again to go home?

I have to strongly agree with Gary's point.

Gupt, your point is heard and understood. However, by coming to America illegally was a risk and a crime punishable by deportation. Whether, these "criminals" were here for five minutes or 20 years with two generations of family members, they have still broken our laws and they should be punished. It has been open season to illegally migrate to America to the tune of over 12 million. When does it end? America has to illustrate to the rest of the world that illegal immigration is unacceptable or we are in for more of the same. We have a formal visa process and they follow the rules like everyone else. It would be my personal preference to have ALL illegals deported and they may have the option of applying for a visa like everyone else. However, since they have come here illegally, which is worst than an overstay, they may well be denied entry into the United States for life.

By the by, we should hold those folks accountable that knowingly harbor and employ illegal aliens as well.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, I think your point is misplaced. The huge influx of illegals is not because of NAFTA it is because of the 1986 amnesty bill. That stupid bill is what opened the flood gates. And now we want to do it again! Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!

Gary, go research the numbers in the years prior to NAFTA. I've never said it's the single cause - just a big factor, not just in terms of numbers, but in destabilizing Mexico's economy. Go look up information on NAFTA - there's a lot of analysis over its successes and failures.

The reasons why they are here isn't my problem. All I care about is getting the gate crashers out of here! Mexico is Mexico's problem. They signed NAFTA. They must live with it's consequences. Everything you try to bring up: bigotry, NAFTA, historical connections ect.. make zero difference to me. All I want is for those who are here contrary to the law to leave. You can rationalize your stance all you want. The fact remains that we have people here that shouldn't be here.

The greatest visionaries throughout time had a good grasp on where we were coming from - to dismiss the causes and effects of immigration trends or disregard history is shortsighted to say the least, Gary. But now we're just chasing our tails as this argument is becoming circular.

[GaryC 7]

Steven, I think your point is misplaced. The huge influx of illegals is not because of NAFTA it is because of the 1986 amnesty bill. That stupid bill is what opened the flood gates. And now we want to do it again! Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!

Gary, go research the numbers in the years prior to NAFTA. I've never said it's the single cause - just a big factor, not just in terms of numbers, but in destabilizing Mexico's economy. Go look up information on NAFTA - there's a lot of analysis over its successes and failures.

The reasons why they are here isn't my problem. All I care about is getting the gate crashers out of here! Mexico is Mexico's problem. They signed NAFTA. They must live with it's consequences. Everything you try to bring up: bigotry, NAFTA, historical connections ect.. make zero difference to me. All I want is for those who are here contrary to the law to leave. You can rationalize your stance all you want. The fact remains that we have people here that shouldn't be here.

The greatest visionaries throughout time had a good grasp on where we were coming from - to dismiss the causes and effects of immigration trends or disregard history is shortsighted to say the least, Gary. But now we're just chasing our tails as this argument is becoming circular.

It's only circular to you. My stance is that anyone here contrary to the law should leave. Your rationalizations for these gate crashers is making it circular which is what I suspect is your goal. Muddy the waters, accuse bigotry and blame us for Mexico's problems in order to confuse the issue and to distract from the fact that we are being invaded from the south.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't care what anyone's rationale for their various positions on this issue are. The idea of sending the immigrants home and then inviting them back is just...retarded.

Just sending them back to Mexico itself is retarded. Where will these people go - particularly the ones who've been here several years? What about the children that have been born here? It's just a completely irrational and asinine idea - I can't believe that intelligent Americans are even entertaining the idea - except that they've blindly accepted the rhetoric and like parrots just keep repeating it over and over..."Send them home." It would be one of the biggest humanitarian crisis this continent ever faced not to mention the astronomical cost of rounding them up and deporting them. Pipe dreams.

Mexicans are Mexico's problem. What about that do you not understand? Mexico is the richest country south of our borders; if they are so incompetent or unwilling to take care of their own citizens, why the hell are we supposed to do it for them? Their government has the will to shoot to kill illegals on their southern border, and to produce and distribute instructions about how to circumvent our laws, we should have the "audacity" to enforce our laws and force them to face the consequences. If there is a humanitarian crisis, it is writ by Mexico, not by us!

Steven, I think your point is misplaced. The huge influx of illegals is not because of NAFTA it is because of the 1986 amnesty bill. That stupid bill is what opened the flood gates. And now we want to do it again! Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We won't be fooled again.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Alex+R 0]

LAWL, threads like these remind me of the poll I did where an overwhelming majority of VJers think they are "more intelligent than average." Hehehe no freakin' way.

[JoeMama 0]

LAWL, threads like these remind me of the poll I did where an overwhelming majority of VJers think they are "more intelligent than average." Hehehe no freakin' way.

And where is your place in this majority?