Reply With Quote
No problem: Bush to the rescue, with four billion dollars.
If you say so.
Very true. I don't think anyone advocating the idea of controlling this illegal immigration disagree with that. The problem is that not enough is being done to control illegal immigration. If we could gat a handle on immigration, we could increase the number of legal immigration! Isn't it better to let the people who not only want to be here, but willing to do it the right way, have the first oppertunity?
Are you high? Many times laws are made because of cir stances that do not meet other peoples approval. Why should people attempt to obey laws that enforcement and penalties are so lax that it doesn't matter? People not caring about the laws is only one part of it. The other part is enforcing those laws. I simply want them enforced.
How many people on the road follow cars too close, go 5 MPH over the limit, or do other minor traffic infractions that never get attention by law enforcement. Do you believe that most people would continue to break these minor laws if the police actually stopped and wrote tickets every time? I believe most people would change their driving habits, and the fewer offenders would be more easily found, with less numbers of police.
A similar concept works with illegal immigration. Once you get serious about enforcement, the number of violations decrease dramatically.
Add that to more stringent proof for working and tamper-proof ID. If it is nearly impossible for them to go unnoticed, word will spread and the problems will stop. Like Yonivore said:
1) Secure the borders.
2) Imprison those who hire illegal immigrants.
3) Imprison those who manufacture fraudulent identification for illegal immigrants.
4) Unelect idiot politicians like the Mayor of Portland, Oregon.
5) Discontinue any en lements to illegal immigrants.
6) Offer them a free ride back to Mexico.
They'll quit coming.
These are the same things I have been advocating myself.
If you don't like the laws, change them.
OK, open the borders completely, allow everyone. I'll bet that China would import about a billion people to our shores then.
What ever happened to the rule of law?
Ever read the cons ution, the parts about immigration?
When they are here without depressing wages, and use no social services, I'm fine with them here. As long as they pay their own way and remain lawful once here.
I am an advocate of placing them in these jobs that supposable Americans don't want. If they can work, and they don't work when employment is available, then cut them off.
Better yet, trade them one-for-one with the illegal aliens who do want to work!
How about that for an immigration idea?
They are hard working and many do support themselves. If they can support themselves and family, I really have no problem with them.
One problem is just that. Before the first Amnesty in 1986, we had legal ways to accept migrant workers. We still do, but not the same as before. Very few of the illegals are really doing jobs that Americans don't want. We don't want the jobs at the wages paid. Supply and demand not only dictates the prices of goods, but the prices of wages too. The estimated 20 million (12 is a very old number) illegals is about 15% of our population. It dilutes what employers must pay for labor. If employers cannot find workers, they should increase the wages. Not increase the workforce, especially by those who disrespect our laws to work.
As for this "bottom of the labor triangle?" there are plenty of jobs the illegals work that use to be good paying jobs. Unscrupulous entrepreneurs have undercut the prevailing wages by hiring illegals who will work for have the price. Many businesses that have gone under have been for this reason.
Agreed. I say find them and cut them off.
We are at least in agreement on these issues.
Nobody in their right mind is saying all immigration is illegal. It is the left that tries to spin the right's point of view that way. We are a nation of immigrants. The land of this nation is now rather well populated, and the days of letting anyone in are no more.
There are a greater number percentage wise that are illegal. That wouldn't happen if we hade real border control.
So would I.
What would happen if you went to Canada some day, bought forged do ents to work, and made a life one day. What would happen if the authorities there found out? Would they prosecute you for those crimes?
Get a clue. They are over-saturating our social systems and depressing wages. If we don't get a handle now, the common citizen will continue to get poorer year by year.
What's your solution? Raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?
There will always be low wage jobs. Raise the floor, and the furniture sits higher too..
Then they claim enough dependants on their W-4 and have no income taxes taken out. Then they get social services under another name, or two, or three. They already have illegal ID, why not? Our system, especially in a Sanctuary City like mine do not check to see if they are getting assistance under more than one name!
I heard something about some of the Social Security numbers being used reduced the benefits of the elderly, because the system shows then receiving an income. How true that is, I don't know, but it makes sense.
We make it easy for people to sit on their asses, and we make it easy for illegals to work. Make it a system of real verification, and both problems will be dramatically reduced.
It sure is, but this is to keep people out. Not to keep our own people prisoners.
Poor comparison.
Until you allow uncontrolled levels of population increase.
It seems to me that the current un-enforced policies and the solutions in the senate are causing some rather stiff social rifts. Most the people want border control and tougher policies. Shouldn't our government listen, instead of trying to increase the cheap labor pool?
Again, I agree. The government is here to protect us, not to give away our sovereignty.
What would the demoncraps do if the people no longer needed social programs?
Keep one thing in mind. I live in this sanctuary city called Portland. Things are getting worse year by year.
My wife's wages have gone down from $15.00 per hour to $12.25 per hour over the last two years. She works for a cleaning service, and her boss has to compete against illegal aliens. He may loose his business, and she may lose her job if things keep going like they are.
No problem: Bush to the rescue, with four billion dollars.
Look, I agree with most of what you wrote... your rebuttals were clearly presented and coherent. Unlike some of the more prejudicial based arguments (social generalizations) that are sometimes thrown around when entering this hot-topic.
With an over-saturated market of workers, companies are having to low cut wages in order to compete. When the wages fall below the limits established by the federal government (i.e. illegal wages), I fully understand that it places an undue burden on companies that aren't hiring 'illegal' migrant workers.
In the bigger picture however, that is exactly what is going on with blue collar and some white collar jobs as well. They are being outsourced to foreign countries. The U.S. is losing more money on a dollar for dollar basis to this phenomenon than it is to the problem posed by 'illegal' immigration. This problem trickles down rather than flowing up, and places the burden on the country's base industries (agriculture, manufacturing etc...). that is why they are being forced into tighter personnel budgets... and the rest is just the product of the market. So either we are willing to pay more for the goods and services provided by the legal market, and do away with 'illegal' wages or we complain about the 'illegal' influx of workers and their effect on our taxes. The balance is not an easy one to resolve from an economic perspective.
Look.... I get that.
The problem I was addressing was that it is completely inhumane for us to label immigrants as criminals simply because they are an 'illegal' work force, the byproduct of their coutries' economic woes, at no fault of their own.
I was addressing the social ramifications of such a blatant prejudicial barb. It casts all immigrants in bad light. That's what I was calling out.
I also stand by my analogy of any proposed future wall to the "Berlin Wall". Though your objection is valid. A wall, any wall, is still very much a deterrent of freedom and liberty. People should never be treated like roaches.
I know we can't fix all the problems in 3rd World countries - governmental inep udes that perpetuate the continual nature of their respective country's 3rd world class status. Problems that drive their people out in search of a brighter future.
We could, however, do a better job of investing the money we spend on immigration enforcement to cut the problem at its root rather than trying to curb the symptoms. Kind of like eliminating the demand for drugs (the dependence of US market) would go a long ways in eliminating the drug trade. We need to cut the demand for migrant work. NOT an easy task of course. We could also do a better job of creating jobs in countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, etc... so that they don't feel the need to come here. In the long run the money vested would be better for the U.S. economy.
It is not inhuman to call things as they are. It is simply being blunt rather than politically correct.
Then blame those who link the two together. Most of us who believe in fixing the problem don't believe in stopping immigration. We just want it to be a controlled process and not excessive.
Have a better solution? What is it?
I didn't think so...
True, but since we can control immigration, shouldn't we grant the ones passage first who with to play by the rules, and not break into our house? (country)
Yes, and all of us conservative want to do just that.
Yep, in this case, if we make it next to impossible for illegals to work, they will go back home. EWord will get out, and they will stop comming.
Migrant work is not the problem. We have legal mechanism for these programs. It is the ones who commit a federal crimes with ID theft and forgeries to work other jobs and stay here, then abuse the wealfare system too.
That was why NAFTA went over so well. It was a good program until we granted the same favors to other countries too. NAFTA would have built up the Mexican economy, but now China and other third world countries are making the goods Mexican citizens were suppose to make. If we had free trade with only Mexico and Canada, we wouldn't need to worry about border control with Mexico. They would have jobs there.
In general I am against free trade, but Mexico is our immediate neighbor. I say free trade with Mexico only and reapply the high tariffs with other countries. It should fix the outsourcing problem too!
Here is a column by Thomas Sowell that I hope all of you
read. Please note what is happening in Europe. And think about
what happened in LA here in the United States. What happened
to OUR police when they attempted to control a group of
hoodlums in LA just a few weeks ago. This is our future, it is
already happening here in the US. I have a very trouble
outlook for this country if we don't get our immigration problem
solved. One thing no one talks about, what happens to all
these un-educated, poor people when unemployment goes to
say 8 percent or 10 percent or even higher. Can you say
riots in the streets.
Jewish World Review June 14, 2007 / 28 Sivan, 5767
A home invader program?
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | People who are pushing for a "guest worker" program show not the slightest interest in what has been happening under guest worker programs in Europe. Facts are apparently irrelevant.
So is logic. Guests are people you invite to your home. Gate crashers are people who come without being invited. Home invaders are people who break in, despite doors that have been shut to keep them out.
If the discussion of immigration laws respected either logic or honesty, we would be talking about a program to legalize home invaders instead of a guest worker program.
As for facts, guest workers from Third World countries have created centers of crime and violence in Europe, and some guest worker communities have become breeding grounds for terrorists.
Just as crime and violence in American inner cities have led not only to "white flight" but also to a flight of the black, Hispanic and Asian middle classes, so in Europe much of the native-born European population has fled from cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Brussels.
Kotkin's classic book "The City" noted the "influx of immigrants" who were "recruited to Europe during the labor shortages of the 1950s and 1960s" who have become "an increasingly angry and sometimes violent element in what long had been remarkably peaceful urban areas."
Another classic book — "Our Culture: What's Left of It" by Theodore Dalrymple — found a similar pattern in France.
Long before the Muslim riots in Paris which shocked France and the world, Dalrymple pointed out how immigrants in France had become a major source of crime and violence, not only in Paris but in other parts of the country.
The housing projects immediately surrounding Paris have become concentrations of "several million" Third World immigrants — a population filled with "the hatred it bears for the other, 'official' society of France."
They are not appeased by "the people who carelessly toss them the crumbs of Western prosperity." What they want is what most people want — respect — and this cannot be given to them, least of all by the French welfare state.
In order to feel self-respect, the young especially "needed to see themselves as warriors in a civil war, not mere ne'er-do-wells and criminals."
This anti-social vision has been supported and even celebrated by many intellectuals, much as both black and white intellectuals have celebrated the senseless brutality and cheap vulgarity of rap music in America.
What may be especially relevant to the situation in the United States is that the immigrant parents and grandparents of the violent youths came to France with a very different view.
They were glad to be in France, which for most was a big improvement over where they came from. "They were better Frenchmen than either their children or grandchildren," Dalrymple noted.
They would never have booed the French national anthem at a public event, as the later generations did — and as the American national anthem has been booed in Los Angeles.
The later generations were not born in the Third World countries from which their parents and grandparents escaped. They were born in France, and resented not having the same prosperity as other Frenchmen.
Here again, the media and the intelligentsia in France, as in the United States, tend to turn differences in achievement — "gaps," "disparities" — into social injustices rather than reflections of differences in the things that create achievement.
One of the things that make many people such passionate advocates of amnesty for illegal immigrants from Mexico is that so many Mexican immigrants are hard-working, decent family people.
That was also true of many Third World "guest workers" in Europe, who were glad to be there, but whose children and grandchildren have developed very different and very poisonous at udes — with the help of activists, demagogues, and the media.
Today's illegal immigrants are too often analogized to early 20th century immigrants from Europe. But their situation is far more similar to that of contemporary "guest workers" in Europe.
But aren't you saying that me must SECURE our doors first? so that means that our doors are not completely shut! so that might mean that we are welcoming them into our country! and then when they are here we give them jobs! so that means that they are not that ''unwelcome'' into hour house!So is logic. Guests are people you invite to your home. Gate crashers are people who come without being invited. Home invaders are people who break in, despite doors that have been shut to keep them out.
solid post by the hegamboa
Personally I can name like 2 or 3 regular legal citizens that are taking advantage of medicare and/or welfare, also using that little bit in the system where you file as seperated from your spouse but really aren't, just to get more benefits.....but that is so much less of a problem than a mexican born mother who works 20 hours a day at mcdonalds, pays all taxes, just so her kids can have clothes and shoes and attend school? Pure blasphemy.
If they're working hard and paying taxes, who gives a . The whole voting argument is ridiculous as well. Show me one concrete peice of data suggesting illegals vote in force. I've yet to see it from any of the ar s who insist it's happening.
I know some also. I think the primary problem is that the government workers think that if they actually follow the intent of the laws, they will lose their jobs from lack of customers!
Except that those in the low wage jobs are taking away jobs from our kids and low skilled USA citizens. On top of that, they already supplied illegal forged do ents to work. Why should I believe they also file a W-4 form correctly to pay taxes? Enforcement is so lax, they can get away with all kinds of fraud taking our tax money in social services too.
Maybe you don't care how your tax dollars are spent, but I have paid more than $20,000 in income taxes during some years, and I see the impact on tax increases necessary to support such socialism!
They can easily skip paying income taxes by how they fill out the W-4.
Maybe where you live, but not in Oregon. They get a Drivers License at DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) using they genuine Mexican ID and then are given a voters registration form! This is an undisputed fact in Oregon. There is simply no federal requirement to verify voter status, so many places refuse to check.
I cannot show you the data because just about anywhere you go evidence is ignored and not checked upon. We conservatives continue to ask for verifications, but it doesn't happen.
Would you be an advocate to verify voter status?
"evidence is ignored and not checked upon."
Simply amazing.
Same faith-based myth about "massive voter fraud" championed by Karl Rove and his henchmen. We're supposed to be afraid, and BELIVE it's out there, but for some mysterious reason, even Repug hack US attorneys, laboring away for 6 years, have been unable to find any evidence of significant fraud, with prosecutions turning up empty handed, or of individuals in single digits. "massive"?? GMAFB
I would be if that werent a 50 year old ploy to keep dumbass minorities (legal) from voting....my grandpa helped strike that down in victoria because they asked for like 2 or 3 forms of ID from everyone and most of the unedumacated mexicans didn't have that....still though, their right to vote was and is the same as others.
How Long Do We Have?
In 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. Oh, and by the way, Social Security will collapse, pension funds will default and guess what?...... we all watched it happen. If you think the great depression of the nineteen-thirties was bad, at least many homes and farms had a garden and livestock back then. We have a refrigerator and a pantry. How long will that sustain a family?
Just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
"History repeats itself because nobody listens" - Anonymous.
^^That 20 million will translate into about 50 million+ if all the
provisions are passed about them bringing their relations into
the country. This influx will do as you say. Bankrupt all the
social programs. It will change the whole makeup of entire
communities/states overnight. And where will the "diversity"
crowd be then. And my dire prediction is: the bill will pass
the senate and more than likely the house. All in the name of
humanity and political correctness and political power.
I think someone watches a lot of Lou Dobbs Tonight!!^^That 20 million will translate into about 50 million+ if all the
provisions are passed about them bringing their relations into
the country. This influx will do as you say. Bankrupt all the
social programs. It will change the whole makeup of entire
communities/states overnight. And where will the "diversity"
crowd be then. And my dire prediction is: the bill will pass
the senate and more than likely the house. All in the name of
humanity and political correctness and political power.
Man, agreeing with cbf is wierd
"NAFTA would have built up the Mexican economy,"
total bull , NAFTA, and globalization, was always a scam for US corps, often with heavy corporate welfare subsidies, to sell into other countries, undercutting local unsubsidized producers.
eg, heavily subsidized US corn destroyed Mexican subsistence corn farmers, many of who became illegal immigrants into the US.
And now that $50B subsidized ethanol has pushed US corn prices high, Mexicans are getting screwed by US high corn prices, a staple of their diet.
With friends like the duplicitous US and its rapacious corps, who needs enemies?
Do you even take a second to analyze what people say, or do you always jump to improper conclusions? You should re-read what I said. Go ahead, take me out of context, and any intelligent person will start ignoring you. I said nothing about liking globalization, and implied the other free trade arrangements are bad!
Yes, we would take a hit with NAFTA alone. However the long term payout is an increased Mexican economy with them working there instead of coming here illegally. Since they are an immediate neighbor, it is in our best interest to help their economy.
What happened, is president Clinton started these free trade arrangements with other countries. Now it is cheaper to buy other places than Mexico, and NAFTA is no longer doing the good it would have.
That’s not true. What evidence? Now I agree we should not subsidize a crop that is now in endless demand. Didn’t I state something similar?
50 billion? Maybe. But the subsidy doesn't push the prices, the demand does. The demand is mandated by fuel mixes per states. If I recall, the subsidy is $0.51 per gallon to those making the ethanol. If that is right, that equates to 98 billon gallons of ethanol. Seems like a rather high assessment, but I haven't looked at the numbers. What is our annual gasoline useage?
Now the subsidy was to keep people buying the required ethanol mixed fuels to not see an increase in prices, since ethanol was more expensive before gas prices climbed where they are today. States like mine in the winter require gasoline to be 10% ethanol. There might be other approved formulas, but my point is that it cost more to make the winter blend before the fuel prices raised.
MTBE is being phased out and replaced by ethanol in some or all parts of the USA. I was never in favor of the subsidy then, and am even more against it since it isn’t needed now to keep the price as low as gasoline. Even if it gets higher than gas with demand, so what. We can deal with higher gas prices yet.
The Mexican issue is entirely different. They have their own corn. As they started using ethanol in fuels, their increase is of their own supply and demand economics. I have not heard of us shipping in their corn for our usage. Is that so? Everything I read deals with their increased ethanol usage. With more of their crops going into fuel production, less is left for food. The price climbs. Part of economics 101. We will see the same thing with corn prices as we start to use more for ethanol.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions