50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:16 pm
revel wrote:
I agree with ebrown that the bill which was passed in the Senate seems to be a pretty good bill since it don't go overboard like the house bill and I believe it had safeguards in place for people who lend a helping hand for illegal immigrants which is good. I don't think gutting welfare is a good solution since a lot of them do pay taxes according to http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=724


Okay let me play devil's advocate for a minute as I don't any problem with illegals paying into the social security system so long as they don't draw any out Smile. (I'm only partially kidding there.)

Now assuming that Americans could not be enticed into taking the job currently held by illegals, what would keep legal guest workers from paying into the system in return for the services they receive while a guest here? They wouldn't necessarily have to be illegal to provide that benefit to us would they?

And then what about the 1/4 of the illegals that your source says are not paying into the system? They would have to be paid under the table in cash to avoid that and, by my calculations, that would be approximately 3 million jobs not available to Americans and producing no identifiable benefit to our economy while there are still 3 million undocumented workers further straining our social services.

You know, I personally know quite a few illegals right here in Albuquerque and for the most part they are delightful people that I like a lot. I wish them absolutely no misfortune, and, if it was just them to consider, I would say just leave them alone and let them be.

Twelve million, however, is more than the total population of several western states. Thats a lot especially with tens of thousands more coming across every month.

There has to be some way to balance compassion with common sense.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:21 pm
Setanta wrote:
Agricultural industries might be closed down--then we'd have to buy our fruit from the Latin American countries from which the migrants derive, which might provide them opportunities to stay home and make a life.

Other industries which rely upon illegal labor would be obliged to pay a living wage to their employers, resulting in high costs to us. They would only be shut down due to price competition from foreign sources. Given the extent to which American capitalists exported industry in the Reagan years, and still continue to do, that would very likely not effect their bottom line.


a trip to trader joe's shows that we are already bringing in fruit and vegetables from saouth american countries.

i'm fine with the mccain-kennedy bill; as long as it is actually adhered to.

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 ?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:30 pm
Due to the total lack of documentation of economic emact of "illegal aliens" I can only assume that wave of patriotic defense of our southern border is racist policy disguised as a law and order issue. Let's call it what it is, "The brownskins are threating my anglo-white vision of america"
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:41 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Due to the total lack of documentation of economic emact of "illegal aliens" I can only assume that wave of patriotic defense of our southern border is racist policy disguised as a law and order issue. Let's call it what it is, "The brownskins are threating my anglo-white vision of america"


seeing as how i've been immersed in the mexican culture since moving to so. cal in 1975, that has nothing to do with my concerns.

especially since most of the people that i've met that confirmed their illegal status to me have been white.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:45 pm
I am a bit curious about what exactly you mean by "immersed in the mexican culture".
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:53 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I am a bit curious about what exactly you mean by "immersed in the mexican culture".


lived with, worked with, romantically involved with mexicanos. best man at my wedding is from east l.a.

dude, you simply cannot live in southern california and not become comfortable with and enjoy mexican culture. the attitudes are much more relaxed about life for the most part.

have you ever been down here ?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 02:01 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
romantically involved with mexicanos.


Shocked This is an odd place to come out of the closet.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 02:03 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
romantically involved with mexicanos.


Shocked This is an odd place to come out of the closet.


don't quite take yer meaning...
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 02:04 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
romantically involved with mexicanos.


Shocked This is an odd place to come out of the closet.


don't quite take yer meaning...


yeah, yeah, yeah... mexicanas...

ya feel better now ?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 05:17 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 06:12 pm
But we do know that amnesty granted under Carter was a bad idea. And amnesty granted under Reagan was a bad idea.

What convinces anybody that Amnesty under George Bush (even if we try to disguise it by calling it something else) is a good idea?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 06:19 pm
um I keep seeing the word amnesty pop up specially from Foxfyre. Is there some current proposed legislation using the word "amnesty?"
Of course if there is such legislation I would like to get on the horn supporting that.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 06:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
But we do know that amnesty granted under Carter was a bad idea. And amnesty granted under Reagan was a bad idea.

What convinces anybody that Amnesty under George Bush (even if we try to disguise it by calling it something else) is a good idea?


And how do we know that (other than the horrible economy we suffered in the late 80's through the 90's)?

What happened to our Christian values?

Jesus (in the Gospel of Mark) wrote:

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.


Christians are very active in politics trying to keep their guns, stop people from marrying and dictate how science is taught? How can anyone who claims to follow the Bible be against forgiveness (amnesty is another word for forgiveness)?

The people you are condemning are now your fellow citizens. They and their children are very thankful to be Americans-- and probably more grateful than you are.

How can you say this is a bad thing?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 06:41 pm
Dys, I would support an amnesty as well.

I think the McCain-Kennedy compromise is good enough and is the best that we can hope in this political landscape.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 07:16 pm
Any legal provision that allow people who are not here legally now to stay here legally is amnesty according to how I define amnesty. It doesn't matter what 'nicer' or 'more politically palatable' term is assigned to it. It's still amnesty.

So you who support amnesty--and actually I haven't used the word all that much--what do you say to those who are getting in line to come in legally? What Christian values do you hold up to support letting 12 million people who did it illegally cut in line in front of them?

And where do you draw the line in upholding the law of the land? If you say okay we won't enforce the law in the case of illegal immigrants already here, what do you use for defense when that is used as precedence for stretching another law that is difficult to enforce?

I honestly am not being argumentative here, but if we're going to have a debate on this, let's look at it all. (I haven't said what my vote here will be either.)
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 07:28 pm
you have said "amnesty" where I find no such reference in currently pending legislation. that's, at best, misleading, and more likely, dishonest.
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 08:06 pm
Engraved On America's Tombstone?

By Frosty Wooldridge

In 476 AD, Rome vanished into the history books. It was a heck of a run: Rome began as a Republic; it conquered most of the known world; it became an empire; it enjoyed slavery; it built lavish architecture still admired into the 21st century; Rome constructed the Coliseum where one million men were slaughtered in 200 years of the 'games'; it partied with decadence in wine, women and song; Mark Anthony and Cleopatra's passions are the stuff of legends; finally, Julius Caesar took knives in his gut; et tu Brutus?

You've read Rome's demise in history books. Shakespeare immortalized great moments. You've seen the movies with Charlton Heston, Yul Brenner and Elizabeth Taylor. Rome's greatness stretched for centuries, but it was put to rest on the Boot Hill of history.

We see the similarities of Rome manifesting in America in the early years of the 21st century. Republic to empire; military bases in 100 countries around the world; Donald Trump nauseates us with his skyscrapers; 100,000 seat NFL stadiums entertaining the masses with outrageous salaried 'gladiators' and booze; Brad and Angelina's endless nothingness; young men dying without reason in the contrived Iraq war; et tu Bushtus?

What will be engraved on America's tombstone if it doesn't stop the Mexican invasion? Who will write the words? Why did it happen? Who aided it within America's borders? Will they be brought to justice? Why did they do it to their own country? To their own children? To the future?

A noble citizen wrote me last week with quotes from the late Ayn Rand, "Which of these two variants of statism are we moving toward: socialism or fascism?"

"To answer this question," she said, "one must first ask: which is the dominant ideological trend of today's culture?

"The disgraceful and terrifying answer is: there is no ideological trend today. There is no ideology. There are no political principles, theories, ideals, or philosophy. There is no direction, no goal, no compass, no vision of the future, no intellectual element of leadership. Are there any emotional elements dominating today's culture? Yes! One! Fear!

"A country without a political philosophy is like a ship drifting at random in mid-ocean, at the mercy of any chance wind, wave, or current, a ship whose passengers huddle in their cabins and cry--"Don't rock the boat!"-for fear of discovering that the captain's bridge is empty. (Bush is our captain)

"It is obvious that a boat which cannot stand rocking is doomed already and that it had better be rocked hard, if it is to regain its course-but this realization presupposes a grasp of facts, of reality, of principles and a long-range view, all of which are precisely the things that the "non-rockers" are frantically struggling to evade.

"Just as a neurotic believes that the facts of reality will vanish if he refuses to recognize them (Bush's current path)-so, today, the neurosis of an entire culture leads men to believe that their desperate need of political principles and concepts will vanish if they succeed in obliterating all principles and concepts. But since, in fact, neither an individual nor a nation can exist without some form of ideology, this sort of anti-ideology is now the formal, explicit, dominant ideology of our bankrupt culture. This anti-ideology has a new and very ugly name: it is called "Government by Consensus." --Ayn Rand, Ford Hall Lecture, 1965

The noble citizen explained, "At some point in our history, we are going to have to deal with the "Mexicanization" of our Southwest and the Left Coast. The issues are pretty simple, but they are too complicated for politicians because they involve money.

"When mobs of illegals congregate in an American neighborhood, who is surprised that crime goes up? People who come illegally from Mexico often bring the "culture" of their home town with them, and that culture is the corrupt, immoral and scofflaw type that persists in Mexican cities. In Mexico, the cops are corrupt too, and whoever has the payola to keep them away--rules the neighborhood. The government is a bunch of "rich good old boys" in the Mexican sense, who aspire to greatness on top of a garbage heap. Only tourism and money sent home by illegals maintains stability.

"It is inevitable that politicians arising from this mass will manifest the culture from which they come. It's already happening, and the "what's in it for me" attitude of a lot of Hispanic politicians who cultivate the illegal "vote" and establishment of "citizen's rights" for illegals in places like southern California is subject to become epidemic in areas of high Mexican concentration. It's already costing the Southwestern states billions every year, just for infrastructure adjustment. So much for the "desirability" of having people who "do jobs Americans won't do." Americans are capable of mowing their own lawns and taking care of their own homes and children. This is a superfluous and specious argument, and does nothing to rationally support the millions of illegals establishing themselves every year on American territory.

"Yes, there are good people among them. But they are all illegals, and searching for a better life has different meanings depending on the level of cultural awareness and desire to assimilate. A separate Mexican community adds little to any city, and creates a lot of law enforcement problems. They bring corruption with them, and some of the problems are those of very dangerous and violent gang nature."

He warned, "Don't think it can't happen. It is happening. Not even the United States can assimilate this many third world people at this rate."

To say the least, Bush exhibits incompetence and constancy. Better that he were competent so he would change course much like the Captain of the Titanic should have! Ayn Rand and this reader's words might be a sobering description of America's tombstone. How is it that an entire nation got fat, stupid and lazy within 50 years of WWII? How is it that half the nation doesn't vote in national elections and less than 10 percent in local elections? How come their remote control garners more importance than participating in their republic's course?

What more will historians write on America's tombstone?

"Here lies America. In 230 years, she won all her battles. She safeguarded mankind's yearning for freedom. She created the greatest opportunity for the most people in the history of the world. She brought the world foreign aid, the Red Cross, Peace Corps, food to tsunami and earthquake victims, and health care. For 230 years, she maintained her sovereignty by guarding her borders. But something happened during the last fateful years of her existence. She, like Rome, left her borders open. A massive horde of foreigners broke into her inner being. Like a cancer, that multitude dismantled every aspect of her political and physical being.

America lost its language and fractured into rival ethnic factions bent on destroying her. America's armies fought contrived wars elsewhere while her leaders pandered for yet more money and power at the expense of integrity. Her president and Congress violated their oaths of office while ignoring the U.S. Constitution. Her people neglected to participate in their Republic. Massive demonstrations of lawless illegal aliens trampled the American flag in the streets of Los Angeles. Where America sustained laws, she became lawless. Where honor once guided America's government, malfeasance reigned."

What do you resolve to reverse this tombstone and reclaim your country?

© 2006 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved
Frosty's book "Immigration's Unarmed Invasion"
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 08:11 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 09:11 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
What Christian values do you hold up to support letting 12 million people who did it illegally cut in line in front of them?


1) Love for your neighbor.
2) Not judging (and not casting the first stone)
3) Having compassion on those who need.
4) Putting compassion for people above the law.

Jesus got in trouble with the teachers of the law (i.e. the religous people of the day) because he didn't uphold the law (which was both the civil law and the religious law). He was known for eating with tax collectors and sinners.

BTW This strategy of pitting legal immigrants against illegal ones is a cynical one, but it doesn't work. Overwhelmingly (by a 2 to 1 margin) legals immigrant support a path to legalization for their illegal colleagues.

Quote:

And where do you draw the line in upholding the law of the land? If you say okay we won't enforce the law in the case of illegal immigrants already here, what do you use for defense when that is used as precedence for stretching another law that is difficult to enforce?


Cory Ten Boom
Rosa Parks
Harriet Tubman

Any of these names ring a bell? Did these people make the world a better place, or a worse place.

Quote:

I honestly am not being argumentative here, but if we're going to have a debate on this, let's look at it all. (I haven't said what my vote here will be either.)


Fine. But understand that we are talking about real people here. If the Conservative side wins, some of my friends will suffer.

The law you are talking about breaking is crossing a border. I have commited worse sins than this, and the fact that many people who are breaking this law are from a poor country and are doing it to support their family is understandable.

The conservatives are calling for harsh penalties which will break families (I know a couple of mixed-status families) and send kids who have grown up in American to what is to them a foreign country-- All because they weren't priveledged to be born American.

Punishing the needy to protect the priveledged. Putting laws above the needs of people. Harshly judging with understanding circumstances.

You haven't fully stated your position yet, and you may surpise me.

But you will have to explain how anything but compassion and forgiveness is an example of Christian values.

Putting laws above the needs of people is not a Christian value.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 09:18 pm
Just to clarify, There is a big distinction between what the Jesus of the Bible would do, and what is politically feasible in today.

I support McCain-Kennedy. The Jesus portrayed in the gospels preached complete amnesty.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 03:55:01