What should be done about illegal immigration?

Well, I'm certain some of those raptured will be Mexicans / South Americans. God just might put them in Huckabee's heavenly hood. Ouchie!

He is one who said he doesn't believe in evolution. The Reps really have some winners.

I've read a great deal about the so-called "need" for low-pay workers in restaurants and farms etc in this here thread.

What I do not see are reasonable rational arguments (as compared to the more benign / saner / safer alternatives) as to this so-called "need" for the massive number of restaurants, nor for the massive amount of higher food chain farm produce, in the first place!

I question the rationalization for this so-called "need" as compared to the more benign / saner / safer alternatives.

I do not see reasonable rational arguments (as compared to the more benign / saner / safer alternatives) for the "need":

a) to produce and consume such massive amounts of foodstuffs higher up on the food-chain such as meats and dairy.

b) to have such huge numbers of fast food joints.

c) to have such massive production, distribution and consumption of animal fats, refined sugars, refined carbohydrates, processed foods, artificial colors, artificial flavorings, preservatives etc.

Do we really "need" millions of acres of prime land decimated for the dubious purpose of simply raising cattle?

Do we really "need" tens of thousands of fast food joints?

Do we really "need" to consume vastly more animal proteins and animal fats than is both environmentally wise and humanly-healthy?

Do we really need huge health care costs due (in part) to the availability of cheap labor to produce such needless, unhealthy, mindless consumption?

I question these practices! I question the public's reckless, unhealthy, and unwise consumption in terms of this so-called "need"!

Thus when some of the posters make claims as to this so-called "need" for so much cheap labor in certain economic sectors, I question that said underlying need is an essential one; and not simply manufactured and habitualized from the likes of convenience, poor eating habits, ignorance, persuasive advertising, government farm subsidies, corporate greed, etc.

I suggest a sizable portion of this so-called "need" for cheap labor in certain economic sectors is based on very poor short term rationalizations that are destructive environmentally, socially, human health-wise and longer-term economically.

For interest's sake: I for one do not eat at any fast food restaurants, nor at any restaurants at all. I do not feel some sort of "need" to do so. I eat very simply and low on the food chain. I feel no "need" to eat large amounts of animal proteins, animal fats, refined sugars, refined carbohydrates, processed foods, artificial colors, artificial flavorings, preservatives etc.

I do this much more for general health reasons than to make any kind of socio-political-economic stand, however my diet may also help illustrate the arguments against the so-called "need" of a sizable portion of cheap labor in certain economic sectors and the related questionable rationalizations that are detrimental environmentally, socially, human health-wise and longer-term economically.

Now understand that I am not anti-free enterprise, nor anti-consumer choice nor anti-free trade but I do question the pretext of "need" for a sizable portion of cheap labor in certain economic sectors.

Advocate, Do you understand the term "slave labor?" I doubt it, but give it a shot. Give us your definition.

Chum, you are going off on a tangent. Let's stick to immigration.

CI, feeling you have no valid argument, you resort to being literal regarding to terminology. Pitiful!

Okay, let's stick with immigration. According to today's San Jose Mercury News, 70 percent of Mexicans are American citizens. So why shouldn't they work in our fields and restaurants?

CI, did you see the subject of this thread? It is about illegals, not citizens.

Yes, and I've answered all the issues about illegals. Show me where I haven't.

Terrorists must love our tolerance for illegals. They can infiltrate very easily.

They can? Most must risk their lives to come into the US across the border of Mexico. If they try it from Cuba, many drown. Any flights coming into the US has security controls at both ends of the flight. Easy? Since when?

Why is it an invalid argument to insist that words have meanings? The word "slave labor" means something emphatically different than "jobs the laborers have freely chosen, have crossed a border to work in by their own initiative, and have jumped through major hoops to get by their own initiative." Why is it invalid reasoning when Cicerone Imposter correctly points that out?

Take a look at the biographies of the 9/11 terrorists. Some of them were in the US legally on student visas. Others came in legally on tourist visas, then illegally overstayed them. None of them entered over the Mexican border. Consequently, protecting the border to Mexico would have done nothing to prevent 9/11, so your reference to terrorists is a red herring. Congratulations, though, on having learned an important lesson from George W. Bush: No matter how feckless your reasoning is, invoking terrorism will magically make it sound profound.

OMG, I'm surrounded by literalists.

How silly! The ones who overstayed visas are illegals. Moreover, experts are certain that a number of terrorists who we have not yet heard from have come in as illegals. There was some publicity on one who was caught coming in from Mexico. I wonder how many were not caught.

Great. When you have a credible reference for his story, please do let me know.

I'm sure this is a real quandry for Advocate. he believes the words mean exactly what he wants them tto mean at the moment he uses them; and that his views on issues ranging from U.S. policy in the Mideast to Israeli expansionism are self-consistent - no matter how those picky literalists react to his many contradictions.

I'm defining "need" in the context of illegal immigration which clearly is a function of demand and cheap labor thus my post is not "off an a tangent" but is in fact pivotal to the underlying issue.

Further I am far from the only poster arguing "need" is a function of demand and cheap labor, witness some of CI's recent posts where he also argues illegal immigration is a function of demand and cheap labor, albeit he asserts different views from the same underlying forces.

However, as shown earlier, a University of California, San Diego. study has shown that workers on farms earn $7.27/hour - more than the federal minimum wage. It's "cheap" depending on who's perspective one looks at this issue.

I think it can be safely assumed it's cheap @ $7.25 / hr relative to the alternatives whether they be increased mechanization and/or domestic-non-immigrant labor.

We have people in the oilfield starting at 14.50. Given a good way to settle the bet, I would bet at least 1/3 are illegal. All have documents that look as good as yours and mine.