What should be done about illegal immigration?

4.5 B, you must get your numbers from Lou Dobbs.What a freakin' idiot. even JustGiggles/Foxfyre don't offer such stupid stats.

It is really nice to know that Advocate's hatred is based on facts.

((It would be even better if the facts weren't demonstrably false, but that may be asking too much).

Looks like Steve King, Republican from Iowa, is just another lying preacher of hate.

And Avocate falls for that crap hook, line and sinker.


http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/070112_nd.htm

IMMIGRATION'S IMPACT ON THE AMERICAN WORKER.

Testimony Prepared for house judiciary committee
May 2007



http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Camarota070509.pdf

au, That's one of the reasons I never believed in the government's "unemployment stats." There are millions of eligible workers not working. The current rate of 4.4 percent understates the reality, and does nobody any favors. Only the current neocons use them to tell us how good our economy is. They just ignore everything else about the increase in the uninsured, more middle class falling into poverty, and the consumers savings rate in the negative and increase in their debt.

imposter does not believe the unemployment rate stats, but only believes the stats he wants to believe for the particular thread he is arguing, among them that there is a labor shortage. He doesn't believe the unemployment stats on threads where they disagree with his conclusions, such as the economy is terrible and getting worse, but on other threads where this country cannot get all of its work done without importing more labor, there is a labor shortage. Which is it, imposter?

Liberal view: There are too many people suffering from poverty.

Liberal Solution 1: Let's go after the rich.

Result: The rich not only have deep pockets, they are smart and have good lawyers, they are a hardened target.

Liberal Solution 2: Let's go after the middle class, they can't afford to defend themselves as well as the rich.

Conservative solution, kill all the liberals.

I like that plan.

yes, I'm sure you do.

The big lie.

With this legislation goes the promise of a strengthened Border control. Those are empty promises that like most of the BS coming out of our congress that will never happen. If they were sincere that would be the legislation being discussed in congress and not the disposition of illegals and amnesty for those who entered illegally.

Why kill the liberals. There are as many idiots of the republican persuasion that are in favor of the legislation. Chief among them is the imbecile in chief.

We should have immigration laws similiar to these.

Should we try Mexico's immigration law?

By J. MICHAEL WALLER The Providence Journal 24-APR-06

WASHINGTON -- Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. But Mexican officials haven't been sharing the idea with us as they press Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration-reform bill. That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how to handle immigration; under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien.

As the Supreme Court and politicians seek to bring U.S. law in line with foreign legal norms, it's noteworthy that no one has argued that the United States look at what Mexico might teach us about how to solve our illegal-immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law, seeking to ensure that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

_ In the country legally.

_ Have the means to sustain themselves economically.

_ Not destined to be burdens on society.

_ Of economic and social benefit to society.

_ Of good character, with no criminal record.

The law also seeks to ensure that:

_ Immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor.

_ Foreign visitors do not violate their visa status.

_ Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics.

_ Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported.

_ Foreign visitors violating terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported.

_ Anyone who aids in illegal immigration is imprisoned.

Who could disagree with such a law?

The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens, and the denial of many rights to non-citizens. The General Law on Population, spelling out the country's immigration policy, should cause Americans to ask: Why is our southern neighbor pushing us to water down our immigration laws and policies when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. Yet if the United States adopted such a law, Mexico would no doubt denounce it as a manifestation of American bigotry.

Mexico's main immigration law welcomes only foreigners deemed useful to Mexican society:

_ Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

_ Immigration officials must "ensure (that) immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and that of their dependents. (Article 34)

_ Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence has upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics," if they are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," if they are not good citizens in their own country, if they have broken Mexican laws, or if "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

_ The secretary of governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities keep track of every person in the country:

_ Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request: i.e., help in the arrest of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

_ A National Population Registry tracks every "individual who comprises (sic) the population of the country," verifying each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

_ A national Catalogue of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), assigning each a tracking number. (Article 91)

Foreigners with fake papers or who enter the country under false pretenses may be imprisoned:

_ Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned.

(Article 116)

_ Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

_ Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

_ Deported foreigners who try to re-enter Mexico without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

_ Foreigners who violate terms of their visa may be sentenced for up to six years in prison. (Articles 119, 120, and 121) Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa (as by working without a permit) can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says:

_ "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of 300 to 5,000 pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

_ Foreigners with immigration problems may be deported, rather than imprisoned. (Article 125)

_ Foreigners who "(make attempts) against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are considered criminals:

_ A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

_ Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs counter to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices and its American-immigration preachings reveals the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let us propose, just to make a point, that North American Free Trade Agreement member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's law as a model.

(J. Michael Waller is a professor of international communication at the Institute of World Politics in Washington.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620819/posts

Not so, AU, my most extreme brethren in the Republican Party have very clear objectives in promoting this idea. Look at the sorry state of our various "social programs", from Franklin Roosevelt's "new deal" to Lyndon Johson's "great society", and consider >



> that the fastest way to destroy the Federal "social programs" is to bankrupt the Federal government, and the fastest way to do THAT is to allow 12 to 20 million illegals currently here, plus up to 4 family members each, to automatically benefit from said social programs having contributed little to nothing into them.

Never underestimate mathematicians, starting with yours truly

The statement you refer to made the simple point that IF 450B came here; we STILL wouldn't be the most population dense country (not even close). No one suggested such a thing were even possible, let alone comfortable. You'll not escape your last bout with idiocy by deflection, any more than you did the last. Strawmen don't fair well at A2K.

Funny you should bring up your 'mathematician' status, while vomitting up such nonsense. Watch: IF 20 million Mexicans brought 4 family members each; that would total 100,000,000 new legal Mexican residents. Do you think that's a rational fear? Were this to happen; future migration couldn't be much of a problem because the majority of Mexicans would already be here. (There's less than 110,000,000 Mexicans living in Mexico).

Bill
After viewing Mexico's immigration laws. Would you call them bigoted or sensible.
Note: those are laws I can live with.

Neither. I consider them a shining example of an inept government's failure to produce worthwhile solutions. Do you really think the United States of American should be following Mexico's lead? Are there other areas of leadership where you think they do a stellar job compared to us as well? Or are you happy to parrot anything, be it well thought out or no, so long as it matches your preconceived notions?

I never like O'bill but every now and then I think he may be right.

OCCOM BILL
Very odd If the US had these laws you would standing on the rooftops yelling that we were bigots and idiots and whatever else came out of your warped brain. However Mexico that has these laws is a how did you put it "a shining example of an inept government's failure to produce worthwhile solutions."
I disagree, they found the perfect solution. Ship their problem of poverty by sending it to the US. That way the get rid of their poor and have about $20 billion flowing into their economy by way of remittances from the Mexicans in the US. Inept government you bet. The problem is the inept government is that of the US.

Illegals bill stems traffic only 25%
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 5, 2007 The Senate's immigration bill will cut annual illegal immigration by just 25 percent, and the bill's new guest-worker program could lead to at least 500,000 more illegal aliens within a decade, Congress' accounting arm said yesterday.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in its official cost estimate that many guest workers will overstay their time in the plan, with the number totaling a half-million in 2017 and reaching 1 million a decade later.
"We anticipate that many of those would remain in the United States illegally after their visas expire," CBO said of the guest-worker program.
In a blow to President Bush's timetable, the CBO said the security "triggers" that must be met before the guest-worker program can begin won't be met until 2010. Mr. Bush had hoped to have those triggers -- setting up a verification system, deploying 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents and constructing hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers -- completed about the time he leaves office in January 2009.
The bill is the result of a "grand bargain" reached by a small bipartisan group of senators and the Bush administration in closed-door negotiations. Under the deal, illegal aliens get immediate legal status and a pathway to citizenship, businesses get access to a stream of temporary workers in the future, and future immigration will take into account needed skills.
Senators returned yesterday after a weeklong vacation to make a last push to pass the bill by Friday.
The Senate yesterday adopted four amendments by unanimous consent, including one that curbs courts' ability to review revocations of visas. But because of the slow pace of work before their vacation, senators have most of the contentious votes still to come.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, warned Democrats not to try to cut off Republicans' amendments.
"We need to have maximum opportunity for the largest number of amendments to be considered before we entertain the notion of shutting down debate on this important measure," he said.
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the top Republican in the negotiations for the grand bargain, yesterday laid out the "killer" amendments he said will break the grand bargain and cause him to have to oppose the bill: creating a separate employer-sponsored system of up to 300,000 new green cards; giving temporary workers a path to citizenship; and changing the dates or definitions to allow broader family migration.
Mr. Kyl said if any of those passed, "I certainly would not support the legislation, I would do everything I can to get it defeated."



But Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, said he will insist on amendments to change the dates for family immigration and rejected Mr. Kyl's threat.
"No one has a monopoly on how best to provide for comprehensive immigration reform," Mr. Menendez said.
Meanwhile, the bill appears to have picked up steam on the left, with immigrant rights groups saying that even though they aren't happy with the bill, they want the Senate to pass it.
In a conference call yesterday, representatives of the National Council of La Raza and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials told reporters that instead of opposing the bill, they intend to try to alter it later in the legislative process.
While much of the debate so far has focused on the policy decisions in the bill, questions are being raised about whether the bill's programs can work.
CBO's report said it was "uncertain" how much future illegal immigration would be cut by the bill. Past enforcement measures have "historically been relatively ineffective," the analysts said, but said this bill's measures -- extra agents, prosecutors and investigators, fencing and workplace sanctions -- will have some effect.
"CBO estimates that those measures would reduce the net annual flow of unauthorized immigrants by one-quarter," the report said.
Still, with up to an estimated 1 million illegal aliens entering each year, CBO is assuming a large problem will remain.
The report said the bill would increase discretionary spending by $43 billion over the next decade, but new workers would pump $48 billion into the government, mostly in Social Security taxes, during that time.
CBO provides official cost estimates for most bills voted on by Congress. The estimates are based on studies of past programs and evaluation of each bill's requirements.
Among the costs would be a new 4,500-employee government bureaucracy to administer the employee-verification system. CBO said it expects the system to handle 20 million verifications initially, with the number peaking at 160 million in 2010 before settling on an annual volume of between 70 million and 75 million verifications.
The report also figures that the new enforcement and verification will cut down on annual illegal immigration, but only by about 25 percent -- short of the expectation of some lawmakers defending the bill.
As for the security-enhancement triggers, CBO said an amendment passed last week to increase the number of agents to be hired and deployed means the goal won't be met until late 2010. The original goal was to hire 18,000 Border Patrol agents, but under the amendment that passed on a voice vote the Homeland Security secretary must now certify that 20,000 Border Patrol agents have actually been trained and deployed.
"CBO judges that the expanded requirements would add six months to the time necessary to meet them and that the secretary's certification would occur near the end of fiscal year 2010," the report said.

Leave it to the senate to make a bad situation worse.