What should be done about illegal immigration?

Asking the hard questions? You crack me up--your ego swells in inverse proportion to your understanding. As for enforcing the law, as Thomas pointed out, changing the laws means that there will be no enforcement needed. It remains a fact of American political life that conservative politicians use immigration as a crypto-racist program to appeal to those in the population with latent or hidden racist bigotry. Whether or not you like it, that's a fact of political life in the United States.

0 Replies

So prove it Setanta. Prove that it is a fact that those who advocate enforcing the law are racist. Show with direct quotes if you can that any who have advocated enforcing the law are anti-anybody other than anti-law breakers.

0 Replies

I have no need to prove your strawman. At no time have i stated that those who advocate enforcing the law are racist. I have pointed out that changing the laws obviates the need for enforcement. Now those who claim the law is fine as it stands, and that it should be rigorously enforced no matter the consequences--i would consider such people suspect as racists.

I'm never obliged to prove something i have not stated.

0 Replies

Setanta writes

Quote:

I'm never obliged to prove something i have not stated.

Setanta did state however

Quote:

I have pointed out that changing the laws obviates the need for enforcement. Now those who claim the law is fine as it stands, and that it should be rigorously enforced no matter the consequences--i would consider such people suspect as racists.

Okay how about proving this one this one that you are obviously stating. I will accept any reasonable quotes you can find that demonstrate any racist propensity whatsoever by any advocating that the law as it stands should be enforced.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Setanta writes

Quote:
I'm never obliged to prove something i have not stated.

Setanta did state however

Quote:
I have pointed out that changing the laws obviates the need for enforcement. Now those who claim the law is fine as it stands, and that it should be rigorously enforced no matter the consequences--i would consider such people suspect as racists. (emphasis added)

Okay how about proving this one this one that you are obviously stating. I will accept any reasonable quotes you can find that demonstrate any racist propensity whatsoever by any advocating that the law as it stands should be enforced.

I've added emphasis to your quote of what i had written, as it apparently did not initially sink in with you that i was stating an opinion, as opposed to stating a fact.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Setanta writes

Quote:
I'm never obliged to prove something i have not stated.

Setanta did state however

Quote:
I have pointed out that changing the laws obviates the need for enforcement. Now those who claim the law is fine as it stands, and that it should be rigorously enforced no matter the consequences--i would consider such people suspect as racists. (emphasis added)

Okay how about proving this one this one that you are obviously stating. I will accept any reasonable quotes you can find that demonstrate any racist propensity whatsoever by any advocating that the law as it stands should be enforced.

I've added emphasis to your quote of what i had written, as it apparently did not initially sink in with you that i was stating an opinion, as opposed to stating a fact.

Fine. And I call that playing the race card.

0 Replies

Illegal aliens shud be deported
AFTER we have punished them severely enuf
that thay will be effectively dissuaded from illegally recidivating.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Illegal aliens shud be deported
AFTER we have punished them severely enuf
that thay will be effectively dissuaded from illegally recidivating.

Very well said!

0 Replies

Explains the baseline, eh?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Setanta writes

Quote:
I'm never obliged to prove something i have not stated.

Setanta did state however

Quote:
I have pointed out that changing the laws obviates the need for enforcement. Now those who claim the law is fine as it stands, and that it should be rigorously enforced no matter the consequences--i would consider such people suspect as racists. (emphasis added)

Okay how about proving this one this one that you are obviously stating. I will accept any reasonable quotes you can find that demonstrate any racist propensity whatsoever by any advocating that the law as it stands should be enforced.

I've added emphasis to your quote of what i had written, as it apparently did not initially sink in with you that i was stating an opinion, as opposed to stating a fact.

Fine. And I call that playing the race card.

Yeah, tell me something i didn't know . . . i'm all too familiar with your habitual whines . . .

0 Replies

Do people ever stop to ask how 12 million illegal aliens get settled into a country "Secretly"?

Oohh nevermind that let's just make 12 million working men and women fugitive felons overnight. That make sense. Thats what this country needs right now; Overwhelmed understaffed frustrated law enforcement. 12 Million instant criminals and a whole sh!t load of vigilantes.

0 Replies

and vegetables.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Do people ever stop to ask how 12 million illegal aliens get settled into a country "Secretly"?

Oohh nevermind that let's just make 12 million working men and women fugitive felons overnight. That make sense. Thats what this country needs right now; Overwhelmed understaffed frustrated law enforcement. 12 Million instant criminals and a whole sh!t load of vigilantes.

Okay, understanding that there is not universal agreement on any of them, here are waht I think are most of the issues as many see them.

1. We have an estimated 11-12 million illegals in this country because we have not enforced the law and because we have a history of just waiving the law after a period; thus we have invited them here by default. Most proposals being kicked around Washington right now are along the lines of waiving enforcement of the law again.

The American public is widely divided over whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing.

2. While the majority are, not all of the 11-12 million illegals are law abiding and hard working. Enough to strain public resources in numerous places are not working at all and are on some kind of public assistance or otherwise availing themselves of free services. A significant number are in American jails and prisons after committing serious crimes unrelated to their illegal status.

3. Even though American memory and attention span tends to be short, in a post 9/11 world, security remains a huge issue. There is something incongruous about national apolexy over UAE management of a U.S. port while seeming unconcern about unknowns streaming across the border illegally every day of every week. I read recently that it is estimated that the illegal population represents some 80 different countries. Not everybody who is coming here illegally is a poor Mexican just wanting a better life for himself or his family. Not everybody comes with harmless motives.

4. A good number of Americans believe that a bad law should be changed, but advocating not enforcing and/or ignoring laws is an open invitation for anarchy, lawlessness, and breakdown of our society.

5. Many Americans, including unions, aren't buying the theory that illegals are doing the jobs nobody else will do. Many see the issue as depressed wages because the illegals will work for substandard wages, no security, and no benefits. That results in cheaper houses and lettuce for everybody, but in some areas it is also making it more difficult for everybody in certain trades to make a living wage.

6. Many believe the illegals are contributing to the overall economy. Ohers believe that the wages they depress, the free services that they receive, and the billions they send out of the country rather than buying goods and services here result in a net loss to the economy, especially in the areas with the highest levels of illegal immigrants.

These are the issues that I think have to be addressed before anything will be done. We can make policy on emotional response to the poor guy who just wants a piece of the American dream, or we can make policy on the big picture for the greater good that will ultimately be best for everybody. It may be that a workable final solution will incorporate both.

0 Replies

The North American Free Trade Agreement was sold, of course, as a boon to the citizens of the United States, Canada and Mexico -- guaranteed both to raise incomes and lower prices, however improbably, throughout the continent. Bipartisan elites promised that it would stanch the flow of illegal immigrants, too. "There will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home," said President Bill Clinton as he was building support for the measure in the spring of 1993.

But NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, could not have been more precisely crafted to increase immigration -- chiefly because of its devastating effect on Mexican agriculture. As liberal economist Jeff Faux points out in "The Global Class War," his just-published indictment of the actual workings of the new economy, Mexico had been home to a poor agrarian sector for generations, which the government helped sustain through price supports on corn and beans. NAFTA, though, put those farmers in direct competition with incomparably more efficient U.S. agribusinesses. It proved to be no contest: From 1993 through 2002, at least 2 million Mexican farmers were driven off their land.

The experience of Mexican industrial workers under NAFTA hasn't been a whole lot better. With the passage of NAFTA, the maquiladoras on the border boomed. But the raison d'etre for these factories was to produce exports at the lowest wages possible, and with the Mexican government determined to keep its workers from unionizing, the NAFTA boom for Mexican workers never materialized. In the pre-NAFTA days of 1975, Faux documents, Mexican wages came to 23 percent of U.S. wages; in 1993-94, just before NAFTA, they amounted to 15 percent; and by 2002 they had sunk to a mere 12 percent.

The official Mexican poverty rate rose from 45.6 percent in 1994 to 50.3 percent in 2000. And that was before competition from China began to shutter the maquiladoras and reduce Mexican wages even more.

So if Sensenbrenner wants to identify a responsible party for the immigration he so deplores, he might take a peek in the mirror. In the winter of '93, he voted for NAFTA. He helped establish a system that increased investment opportunities for major corporations and diminished the rights, power and, in many instances, living standards of workers on both sides of the border.

So long as the global economy is designed, as NAFTA was, to keep workers powerless, Mexican desperation and American anger will only grow.
http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2006/03/immigration-debate-and-what-krugman.html

0 Replies

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: Immigration

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted this on the other thread about Immigration.I still think it's an economic issue despite all the xenophobia surrounding it. If we pay American workers a living wage to do these jobs, they will fill them.

It was once said by a group of sage and sagacious young men gathered in the desert to molt that "opinions are like ass**les, everybody has one"
This was later expounded upon by that same group of bored stiff
wisemen. They further determined that "every ass**le has an opinion" As
proof of this postulate I will offer mine on the subject of
immigration.

There are two camps in this country on this subject. Thoses who are in
favor of sending every immigrant back where they came from especially
if it was south of the border, and those who would formulate somekind
of guest worker program.

Neither of these addresses the real issue exposed by the immigration
guestion. That issue is jobs. People come here because there are jobs.
Jobs that pay better than in their home country. Perhaps? But jobs none
the less. Jobs that American citizens can and would do? In many cases,
I doubt it!

Living in California's Central Valley for nearly 20 years has given me
at least anacodotal evidence that tending the crops is not on the short
list of jobs for any Gringo. Not even the high school students out for
summer break want to brave the 100+ degree days pruning and trimming
and picking in the groves for, often times, less than minimum wage.

There is no shame in working the fields or cleaning hotel rooms. There
is shame, however, in working for anything other than a living wage.
The shame is on the employer. Paying a worker enough to keep them out
of poverty is not only the right thing to do but it is wholly a
Judeo-Christian value that too many hypocritical Christians seem to
want to overlook.

So what is the solution? Simple! Mandate a living wage(as opposed to the minimum wage). Those here legally and those born here will gravitate to these jobs and those here illegally will be forced to return home. But, there is one other piece to this puzzle. Mandate the harshest penalties to any employer who either doesn't pay a living wage or hires an illegal immigrant.

It must be said that I put the blame for this problem on the employers
who take advantage of the illegal's status and exploit them and the
politicians who have turned a blind eye to the problem. It is not the
immigrant, I am the descendent of immigrants, that I am singling out,
it is those who keep the "open for businees" sign lit that I have a
problem with. Let the immigrant apply for entry legally and I will
welcome them.

0 Replies

I agree with cavolina about the problem mostly being bought about by employers wanting to have cheap labor.

Something for republican's to consider:

Florida Gov. Bush Calls Tone of Immigration Debate `Hurtful'

Quote:

Jeb Bush pointed to the political damage wrought 12 years ago by California's Proposition 187, in which the state's voters backed a plan to strip illegal immigrants of public benefits. The initiative was pushed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican. Some analysts have since blamed that campaign for a backlash among Latino voters that has made California reliably Democratic in national elections.

Gov. Bush wrote that Wilson "fell prey" to the short-term political temptations. "I know he felt he was doing the right thing, but matters are worse now and the Republican Party is now the minority party in California," Bush wrote.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Setanta wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
a question though;

what is proposed to be done with illegal entrants arriving after the implementation of McC-K ?

what happens with those who fail, or refuse, to register for the program?

what about those who actually are involved, or get involved in criminal activities ?

These same questions were advanced during the Reagan administration, at the time of the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986--no one bothered to answer those questions then, either.

har! looks like we're the only ones wonderin' about it in 2006, too.

i simply cannot believe that nobody is even talking about this stuff..

they are only a couple of the dynamics that will cause any plan to succeed or fail.

0 Replies

The difference a decade or so makes (emphasis mine):

Wed - April 5, 2006

Quote:

Senate Democrats pushed for a vote on a bipartisan immigration bill after Republicans foundered while trying to rally GOP support for a compromise on what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants now in the country.

Democrats set up a showdown over a proposal that would allow the illegal immigrants to remain in the country and become permanent residents after paying $2,000 fines and back taxes, learning English and working six years.

"Are the Republicans going to stand up for comprehensive immigration reform or not?" Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Tuesday.

Republicans had floated a proposal Monday night and early Tuesday to divide illegal immigrants between those who have been in the country more than five years and those who have not.

Several rank-and-file Republicans objected, and Majority Leader Bill Frist and fellow Republicans spent much of the day trying to find an alternative.

"I don't know that we're going to get a bill," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio. "It's tough."

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, blocked numerous attempts by Republicans to hold votes Tuesday on selected amendments. "We do not need a compromise. It's in our bill," he said and later set the stage for a test vote on Thursday.

Democrats need 60 votes to overcome objections from conservatives on the immigration bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee that is being pushed by Reid.

Durbin acknowledged the votes to cut off debate and force a final vote are not there, but said Democrats had to move because they feared Frist was going to let the clock expire on the bill, in its second week on the floor.

More. . . . . .
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/05/D8GPRBR02.html

FLASHBACK: Dem Senate Leader Harry Reid: 'Our Federal Wallet Stretched To Limit By Illegal Aliens Getting Welfare'

'Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally'
(Senate Floor: 1993)

Senator Reid's proposed bill at that time:

Quote:

August 5, 1993

The Office of Sen. Harry Reid issued the following:
In response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today introduced the first and only comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress.

Currently, an alien living illegally in the United States often pays no taxes but receives unemployment, welfare, free medical care and other federal benefits. Recent terrorist acts, including the World Trade Center bombing, have underscored the need to keep violent criminals out of the country.

Reid's bill, the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993, overhauls the nation's immigration laws and calls for a massive scale-down of immigrants allowed into the country from approximately 800,000 to 300,000.

The bill also changes asylum laws to prevent phony asylum seekers. Reid said the U.S. open door policy is being abused at the expense of honest, working citizens.

"We are a country founded upon fairness and justice," Reid said. "An individual in real threat of torture or long-term incarceration because of his or her political beliefs can still seek asylum. But this bill closes the door to those who want to abuse America's inherent generosity and legal system."

Reid's bill also cracks down on illegal immigration. The 1990 census reported 3.3 million illegal aliens in America. Recent estimates indicate about 2.5 million immigrants illegally entered the United States last year.

"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs," Reid said. "The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement.

"Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes.

"Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world. "Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally," Reid said.

Specific provisions of Reid's Immigration Stabilization Act include the following:

-- Reduces annual legal immigration levels from approximately 800,000 admissions per year to about 300,000. Relatives other than spouse or minor children will be admitted only if already on immigration waiting lists and their admission does not raise annual immigration levels above 300,000.

-- Reforms asylum rules to prevent aliens from entering the United States illegally under phony "asylum" claims.

-- Expands list of felonies considered "aggravated" felonies requiring exclusion and deportation of criminal aliens. Allows courts to order deportation at time of sentencing.

-- Increases penalties for failing to depart or re-entering the United States after a final order of deportation order. Increases maximum penalties for visa fraud from five years to 10 years.

-- Curtails alien smuggling by authorizing interdiction and repatriation of aliens seeking to enter the United States unlawfully by sea. Increases penalties for alien smuggling.

-- Adds "alien smuggling" to the list of crimes subject to sanctions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Expands the categories of property that are forfeited when used to facilitate the smuggling or harboring of illegal aliens.

-- Clarifies that a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen. This will eliminate incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits.

-- Mandates that aliens who cannot demonstrably support themselves without public or private assistance are excludable. This will prevent admission of aliens likely to be dependent on public financial support. This requirement extends to the sponsor of any family sponsored immigrant.

-- Increases border security and patrol officers to 9,900 full-time positions.

END
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1hr.htm

0 Replies

,,

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Me specifically? Not specifically. Allusions to the effect that any who advocate asking the hard questions or enforcing the law are anti-Mexican or anti-different races, etc., absolutely.

that does seem to be the case, and not just on a2k.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know