Fillibuster the bill, only pass it if it secures we will enforce border policies after this.
Waiting to see if border policies are enforced would take too much time. You think they'll come out of the coset to challenge this ruling anytime soon? Gearing up to have this vote take place was no easy business. You would think there'd be a sooner reaction.
Maybe they'll just fold up the tents.
Just saw a report on protesting the judge's decision. 4 protesters.
Unless the third world develops, which should be the first world's priority, the immigration problem will never go away.
fixed it
Seriously though, the idea that third world development is a priority of the first world has given the world the IMF, World Bank and interventionist foreign policy, 3 things the world would definitely be better off without.
The first world can't solve the third world's problems. There are a number of examples that show this. Throwing money at a problem that exists on a systematic level never works under any cir stances.
How bout the third world taking a little responsibility
themselves. Like letting capitalist come in and
"exploit" their resources and give people work. It is not
the "first" world's priority to develop anything.
When you say "developed" I take this to mean financial aid,
which the "first" world nations have been doing since I
can remember. Sometime or other, these nations are
going to have to take responsibility for their own people.
Or the people are going to have to take the initiative on
their own.
And I don't mean Hugo Chavez and his kind. I mean
people who really care about their country. Don't tell
me it cant happen. It happened in the good old U.S.A.
which alot of folks would now like to change. Like those
who come from these third world nations and want to
make it into the country they left. Screw them, they don't
like how we do things here, go home. And yes I am
sincere in saying that, I mean it from the bottom of
my heart. I happen to like MY country as I know it,
not in how they want it.
You guys don't get it. The playing field is so scewed in favor of the already vastly rich countries, that the poor countries of the world will never develop if the status quo remains.
Of course it would help if there was less corruption in those governments. And less bias towards socialism.
But that is beyond the point.
As long as there are single individuals whose fortunes alone are larger than some poor country's GDP, the US problem of immigration will never be solved.
No ray, I don't mean financial aid. I mean level the ing playing field.
Addressing both of the above post.
You may want to look at where the most wealthy
individuals are. In third world nations.
This should be fun:
A Mexican Attends an Anti-Immigration Rally
i disagree with smeagol
but this plan bush will sign, doesnt sound too conservative to me
I agree with this. The big issue is whether the US is prepared to control the borders, to know who has come in and who has gone out, to know who is working for whom. If the US doesn't do this, we will just see the same situation again in 5-10 years.
At this point, the US is not prepared and apparently doesn't want to be. The states are balking at the Real ID Act. Businesses want to continue hiring illegals to keep costs down (also homeowners who hire for maids, yard work, handywork, etc.). Simply bottling up the border puts more pressure than the US wants on Mexico to get its act together.
I find the outrage about all the illegals here funny. They wouldn't be here if our glorious capitalistic system wasn't allowed to hire them. We have a system of winks and nudges instead of much resembling security. Convenience trumps security.
A series of three articles by Thomas Sowell which makes more
sense that what has been posted. It is quite long and is
in three sections, so I don't pretend to think some of the folks
on this forum would take the time to read the whole thing. But
here it is and it tells it like it is.
The Amnesty Fraud
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Nothing is more common than political "solutions" to immediate problems which create much bigger problems down the road. The current immigration bill in the Senate is a classic example.
The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is "unrealistic" to round up and deport 12 million people.
Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.
As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?
If the current immigration bill is as "realistic" as its advocates claim, why is it being rushed through the Senate faster than a local zoning ordinance could be passed?
We are, after all, talking about a major and irreversible change in the American population, the American culture, and the American political balance. Why is there no time to talk about it?
Are its advocates afraid that the voting public might discover what a fraud it is? The biggest fraud is denying that this is an amnesty bill.
Its advocates' argument is that illegal immigrants will have to meet certain requirements to become citizens. But amnesty is not about how you become a citizen.
The word is from the same root as "amnesia." It means you forget or overlook some crime, as if it never happened. All this elaborate talk about the steps illegal immigrants must go through to become citizens is a distraction from the crime they committed when they crossed the border illegally.
Instead, all attention is focused on what to do to accommodate those who committed this crime. It is a question that would be recognized as an insult to our intelligence on any other issue.
For example, there are undoubtedly thousands, perhaps millions, of unsolved crimes and uncaught criminals in this country and we cannot realistically expect to find and prosecute all these fugitives from justice.
But does anyone suggest that our focus should be on trying to normalize the lives of domestic fugitives from justice -- "bring them out of the shadows" in Ted Kennedy's phrase -- and develop some path by which they can be given an acceptable legal status?
Does anyone suggest that, if domestic criminals come forward, pay some fine, and apply to have their crimes overlooked, they can be put on a path to be restored to good standing in our society?
Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal, in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens.
All across this country, illegal aliens are being caught by the police for all sorts of violations of American laws, from traffic laws to laws against murder. Yet in many, if not most, places the police are under orders not to report these illegal aliens to the federal government.
Imprisoning known and apprehended lawbreakers for the crime of illegally entering this country, in addition to whatever other punishment they receive for other laws that they have broken -- and then sending them back where they came from after their sentences have been served -- would be something that would not be lost on others who are here illegally or who are thinking of coming here illegally.
Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits.
Incidentally, remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built. That should tell us something about how seriously they are going to enforce other border security provisions in the current bill.
The Amnesty Fraud: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Every aspect of the current immigration bill, and of the arguments made for it, has Fraud written all over it.
The first, and perhaps biggest, fraud is the argument that illegal aliens are "doing jobs Americans won't do." There are no such jobs.
Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation -- agriculture -- they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won't do?
The argument that illegal agricultural workers are "making a contribution to the economy" is likewise misleading.
For well over half a century, this country has had chronic agricultural surpluses which have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars a year to buy, store, and try to get rid of on the world market at money-losing prices.
If there were fewer agricultural workers and smaller agricultural surpluses, the taxpayers would save money.
What about illegal immigrants working outside of agriculture? They are a great bargain for their employers, because they are usually hard-working people who accept low pay and don't cause any trouble on the job.
But they are no bargain for the taxpayers who cover their medical bills, the education of their children and the costs of imprisoning those who commit a disproportionate share of crime.
Analogies with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today.
People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.
Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English.
As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called "bilingual" and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here -- and before they were born.
These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the "multicultural" ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics.
The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico -- as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times -- reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did.
Claims that the new immigration bill will have "tough" requirements, including learning English, have little credibility in view of the way existing laws are not being enforced.
What does "learning English" mean? I can say "arrivederci" and "buongiorno" but does that mean that I speak Italian?
Does anyone expect a serious effort to require a real knowledge of English from a government that captures people trying to enter the country illegally and then turns them loose inside the United States with instructions to report back to court -- which of course they are not about to do?
Another fraudulent argument for the new immigration bill is that it would facilitate the "unification of families." People can unify their families by going back home to them. Otherwise every illegal immigrant accepted can mean a dozen relatives to follow.
"What can we do with the 12 million people already here illegally?" is the question asked by amnesty supporters. We can stop them from becoming 40 million or 50 million, the way 3 million illegals became 12 million after the previous amnesty.
The most fundamental question of all has not been asked: Who should decide how many people, with what qualifications and prospects, are to be admitted into this country? Is that decision supposed to be made by anyone in Mexico who wants to come here?
The Amnesty Fraud: Part III
By Thomas Sowell
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Whose problem is the immigration bill in Congress supposed to solve? The country's problem with dangerously porous borders? The illegal immigrants' problem? Or politicians' problems?
It has been painfully clear for years that the country's problem with insecure borders and floods of foreigners who remain a foreign -- and growing -- part of the American population has the lowest priority of the three.
Virtually every step -- even token steps -- that Congress and the administration have taken toward securing the border has been backed into under pressure from the voters.
The National Guardsmen who were sent to the border but not assigned to guard the border, the 700-mile fence on paper that has become the two-mile fence in practice, and the existing "tough" penalties for the crime of crossing the border illegally that in practice mean turning the illegal border crossers loose so that they can try, try again -- such actions speak louder than words.
The new immigration bill that supposedly secures the borders first, before starting the process of legalizing the illegal immigrants, in fact does nothing of the sort.
It sets up various programs and procedures -- but does not wait to see if they in fact reduce the flow of illegal immigrants before taking the irrevocable step of making American citizenship available to 12 million people who came here illegally.
This solves the problem of those illegal immigrants who want to get citizenship. The steps that they have to go through allow politicians to say that this is not amnesty because these are "tough" requirements.
But, whether these requirements are "tough" or not, and regardless of how they are enforced or not, there is nothing to say that the 12 million people here illegally have to start the process of becoming citizens.
Those who do not choose to become citizens -- which may well be the majority of illegal immigrants -- face no more prospect of being punished for the crime of entering the country illegally than they do now.
With the focus now shifted to the process of getting citizenship, those illegal immigrants who just want to stay and make some money without being bothered to become part of American society can be forgotten, along with their crime.
This bill gets the issue off the table and out of the political spotlight. That solves the problem of politicians who want to mollify American voters in general without risking the loss of the Hispanic vote.
The Hispanic vote can be expected to become larger and larger as the new de facto amnesty can be expected to increase the number of illegal border crossers, just as the previous -- and honestly labeled -- amnesty bill of 1986 led to a quadrupling of the number of illegals.
The larger the Hispanic vote becomes, the less seriously are the restrictive features of the immigration bill likely to be enforced.
The growth of the illegal population is irreversible but the means of controlling the growth of illegals are quite reversible, both de facto through the watering down of the enforcement of "tough" requirements and de jure through later repeals of requirements deemed too "tough."
One of the remarkable aspects of the proposed immigration "reform" is its provisions for cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Employers are to be punished for not detecting and excluding illegal immigrants, when the government itself is derelict in doing so.
Employers not only lack expertise in law enforcement, they can be sued for "discrimination" by any of the armies of lawyers who make such lawsuits their lucrative specialty.
But no penalties are likely to be enforced against state and local politicians who openly declare "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants. Officials sworn to uphold the law instead forbid the police to report the illegal status of immigrants to federal officials when these illegals are arrested for other crimes.
This is perfectly consistent for a bill that seeks above all to solve politicians' problems, not the country's.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Ins ute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Good read Ray.
Well, I just downloaded the Amnesty Bill a few hours ago, and haven't read it yet. Up to something like 780 pages. If what I hear about it is true, everyone voting for it is a traitor!
Anyone consider the skyrocketing Social Security benefits that we would pay out soon without the 50-60+ year old illegals not contributing long, but able to collect? I don't remember the numbers, but they are absolutely huge!
I didn't see many solutions. Anyone? Creating an environment for self deportation I think is the best. Here are a few thoughts, in no particular priority:
1) Create a verification system for legality. Require employers to verify legality. Have no W-4 deductions available for taxes if unable to verify legal status. Require taxes be taken out from the employees paychecks at maximum taxation levels, maybe even an extra tax. If later, legal do ents can be produced, this extra tax can be returned to normal, and the individual can get any excess back on their tax return when they file taxes.
2) No more talk about Amnesty until the borders can be controlled. At least our southern border. Plug the biggest leaks first.
3) No food stamps or other government services for those who cannot show legal residency. Offer free transportation back to their place of origin however, with some spending money.
4) One argument is that the illegals work the jobs nobody else will. That is not quite true. There are legal procedures to bring in workers from other places. Businesses just like to use the cheap labor that excessive people bring. I say that we make arrangements between employers who claim they cannot find workers, and the social services of each state. There are plenty of able bodied people just sucking the government s. I say make them work.
Any other thoughts?
I suggest we all call our senators and representative. Let them know how we feel. Washington D.C switchboard is (202) 224-3121. I suggest calling until you talk to each one that represents you, or at least until you leave a message. Once is enough per person. Excessive calls might be disregarded since they have the ability to check the number of calls from a number.
No surpirses there
What is it you disagree with me this time? That the playing field is scewed?
Let's find out about some of these great jobs rayzebra and wild cobra are going to restore to white-skinned, er, red-blooded Americans!
Hard Labor
Felicia Mello
The Nation, September 11, 2006
The Grimmway packing plant in Arvin, California, a drab farmworker town fifteen miles southeast of Bakersfield, is where carrots go to be reborn. After months of being coaxed and weeded in the nearby fields, the vegetables are yanked from the ground by a mechanical harvester. A convoy of open-bed trucks carries them to the plant, a cluster of tan, windowless buildings with mysterious-looking pipes and gadgets protruding from the sides. Here they are washed, sliced, sanded and emerge as "baby" carrots--the snackable treats in the cellophane bag familiar to health-conscious shoppers everywhere.
Once the carrots pass through an opening in the side of the main building, they enter a world that seems miles away from the fields and orchards outside. Dozens of machines fill the chilly air with a deafening noise. Employees wade through pools of water several inches deep on the plant's rubber floor. There are carrots everywhere--scattered on the floor, piled inside carts and vats, in heaps at the base of the metal equipment.
At the grading tables, the new arrivals float by teams of Latinas in masks and hairnets who separate the good ones from those with imperfections. Supervisors stand by to time bathroom breaks of no more than seven minutes and to scold the women if they speak or glance up from their work.
Here, surrounded by the rhythmic thwack-thwacking of the machines, Beatriz Gonzalez stands for eight hours a day and sorts. Wearing rubber gloves and down ski pants to keep her warm, she deftly reaches into the orange tide, plucking out defective specimens and tossing them into a center tub. Years of performing the repe ive motion have swollen her forearms and left her with arthritis in her knuckles. When she started working in the Arvin plant, she earned the state minimum of $6.75 an hour. Four years later, she makes $7.30.
A pe e woman with fluffy bangs and rounded features, Gonzalez studied law in her native Mexico but left school for the United States in search of wealth. "Now," she says sadly, "I have neither money nor education."
Gonzalez's workplace looks like any number of packing sheds in California's fruit and vegetable industry, where the state that grows half the country's produce has for decades relied on a low-paid immigrant workforce to tend and harvest its crops. But this is no ordinary plant--Gonzalez's employer is a leader in the organic food business, an industry that prides itself on a gentler approach to the land and the people who work it. Her experience illustrates just how far the organic food movement has yet to go to fulfill its promise of a more socially just food system.
I visited Grimmway because I was curious about organic food and the people who grow it. I grew up eating vegetables from my mother's garden. Fresh-picked zucchini blossoms fried and stuffed with cheese, homemade bread soaked in the juice of heirloom tomatoes--these are some of my most vivid childhood memories. And when I go grocery shopping, I'm drawn to fruits and vegetables that look like the ones on which I was raised: real and imperfect, sometimes a little dirty, but looking and smelling like fruits and vegetables rather than waxy widgets that just fell off an assembly line. In other words, I buy organic, and I feel good about the decision, even if it means spending a little more.
I'm not alone. For many consumers, an organic apple tastes sweeter not only because it's healthier but because it conjures up a vision of a simpler, more pure world, where we produce our food without wreaking havoc on the environment and our relationship to it is unmediated by fear, guilt or the drive for excessive profits. This image of a food utopia has fueled the growth of the organic food industry, which is expanding by 20 percent each year.
But the farmworkers who bring in the organic harvest face a different reality, one largely invisible to food buyers. Whether they work in the fields or in processing plants, most workers on organic farms, like those on conventional farms, are immigrants from Mexico who earn minimum wage or slightly more and receive no benefits. Fieldwork on organic farms can be especially strenuous because farmers employ back-breaking methods like hand-weeding to avoid using pesticides.
California's more than 2,000 organic farms range from multimillion-dollar companies like Grimmway, where temporary agencies and labor contractors supervise the workers, to small family ranches where owners enjoy good relations with employees but pay them so little that they rely on public assistance and charity. Organic farmworkers in the San Joaquin Valley, the state's largest agricultural region, often live in the same towns as conventional farmworkers, where poverty rates can reach one-third, pesticide drift is an ever-present problem and the food available for purchase is likely to be high in fat and low in nutrients. A 1999 study of 150 California organic farmers found that more than half paid their workers the minimum wage; less than 10 percent paid more than $7.50 per hour.
"Generally a consumer who goes to Whole Foods makes the assumption that if producers are growing in a way that's conscious of the environment, that's going to be better for workers," said Martha Guzmán, legislative advocate for the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, a farmworker advocacy group. "And that assumption benefits the organic industry. But when you look at the labor practices that matter most--paying decent wages, treating workers with respect--none of that is really related to whether you use a certain type of pesticide."
It wasn't supposed to be this way. The homesteaders and commune dwellers who pioneered sustainable agriculture in the 1960s saw their movement as a wholesale alternative to industrial agriculture, with its poisonous chemicals, soil-depleting techniques and exploitative labor practices. As culinary historian Warren Belasco explains in his book Appe e for Change, early farmers' "radical vision extended the organic farmer's cooperation with nature to a cooperative model in human relations."
Yet after spending several months visiting California organic farms and talking to consumers, workers, farmers and retailers, I heard a sharp debate about whether organic farmers should do better for their employees. The clamor has intensified in the past year, as farmers and worker advocates have clashed over state regulations intended to protect farmworkers. In the spring of last year, researchers at the University of California published a study showing that organic farmers widely oppose requirements that they pay benefits and allow farmhands to organize.
Nonetheless, there is a small but growing campaign, backed by some of organic agriculture's staunchest supporters, for a new kind of food labeling, one that would guarantee that food is produced in ways that benefit workers as well as the environment.
As organic farming comes of age, with demand outpacing supply, many are asking the same questions I did after my tour of Grimmway: How did organic farmers come to emulate the labor practices of a system they fought so hard to escape? And when it comes to the way Americans treat the people who grow our food, is this as good as it gets?
"Farming is farming," says Fred Rappleye, a manager for Grimmway's organic division, when I tell him some criticize the company's low wages. "When you get into organic you are being more proactive with the environment, but [boosting] pay is a hard thing to do. Labor is always the highest cost, and it's one of the things we try to keep under control. All of organic is a business, too, and you have to make money.
^^Whats your point. Work is hard. Everyone knows that.
Some manual work is hard and some brain work is hard. I
just don't see your point.
I am not for amnesty. I don't think it would be wise to allow so many people, who would not support the USA, a pathway to citizenship. Very bad idea.. I don't think this is a dem or rep. issue it is a matter of a national iden y and and a national security issue
I agree George. Wholeheartedly.
I agree with XrayZebra. NSRammstein, what's your point. You may as well advocate the return of slave labor. How dare you say one class of people are better than another? Are you saying we Americans are too good to do such labor, or are you saying the illegals are to be treated as modern slaves?
I say if those crossing our borders are willing to work at such places, why should we pay people to sit on their asses? Make them work first! Take care of our own citizens first with jobs.
I admire the illegal aliens in some ways. Most of them are hard workers. Most of them have better family values than the average US citizen. We have become lazy as workers.
Reconsider the work force we have that is not being used. The welfare state cannot be maintained at its growing rate. We need to put these people to work.
Supply and demand also dictates if we make the system hard for illegals to find work, then with a smaller supply of workers, the wages will rise.
One more thing. The Nation is not a very neutral source to trust. It speaks only of the farming jobs. Today, the illegals are taking good jobs like construction too. Why pay $15.00 or more for USA workers when the illegals will do it for $8.00 or less? This is one reason why the middle-class is dying. Blue collar jobs are going to the illegals! High school kids are having a hard time finding work. Look at who works in the fast food places these days!
you act like the will of people is so great that illegal immigration is something we have to live because we're rich and theyre poorNo surpirses there
What is it you disagree with me this time? That the playing field is scewed?
immigrants really have nothing to do with it
we havent done anything to enforce our borders, rick perry and bush, the federal government, the neocons, the democrats, its all on us
and AMNESTY however you want to call it is the worst idea ive ever heard of
anyone who supports this bill is whats wrong with america
just as bad as a neocon whatever side youre on
So if we want foreigners to enter this country legally that makes us a racist?
Why the should someone who entered this country illegally get a reprieve when others, like my mom, had to go through the long immigration process that those entering the country legally were subjected to?
That's bull .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
