What should be done about illegal immigration?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, You wrote:
Quote:
This is the kind of idiocy that is trying to destroy this country.

You call it "idiocy," but don't explain why. You say "destroy this country," but don't explain why.

The "why" is obvious. Any politician that does not support enforcing laws, especially reasonable laws such as immigration laws, that politician if elected would basically be defying the oath of office by not enforcing the laws of this country.

Quote:

We want to see credible sources for your opinions. Not what you imagine to be factual or true.

What credible source besides common sense do you need for advocating enforcement of laws. That is what the executive branch is all about, in case you never learned that in school, ci.

Quote:

CLUE: Our country is based on immigration. We not only need the skilled workers, but also the laborers to harvest our food, and work in our service industries. That's what keeps our country competitive and grow our economy.

CLUE: our country has been populated greatly by legal immigration, which is far different than illegal immigration.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Right. The Right want illegal immigrants to increase profits, and the Left want illegal immigrants to vote for them. It couldn't be that people from both sides of the aisle just happen to recognize people from the other side of an arbitrary line in the sand as people.

Thus we need principled people in both parties to stand up for enforcement of immigration laws. If they don't like the laws, then change them, but change them in the full light of an open legislative process. If the current bunch of people in office are too spineless and unprincipled as to not do what they swore to do when they entered office, then they should either resign or be voted out as soon as possible, to be replaced with people that have principles and the fortitude to enforce the laws.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, That's been an existing problem with both republican and democratic party control of the administration and congress. What's your beef?

Your common sense doesn't have any.

Go back to my first paragraph.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I think the Reps have been soft on immigration because they see the illegals as cheap labor, which increases profits. They don't care that the related costs are killing state and local governments, and that the illegals are taking away many million of jobs from citizens, especially poorer citizens. Powell is not too bright, and I would expect from him the loopy views he expressed.

Advocate, as often as we disagree, I largely agree with you on this. The Repubs and Dems are both to blame, and each party has its own reasons for what they have done or not done in regard to this issue. I also agree that Powell does not strike me as being all that bright, in regard to some things at least.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, That's been an existing problem with both republican and democratic party control of the administration and congress. What's your beef?

Your common sense doesn't have any.

Go back to my first paragraph.

ci, when anyone in the executive branch takes office, they take an oath to execute their duty to uphold the law and the constitution. That does not give them the privilege of ignoring the laws they don't like, okay. That is common sense for anyone that has ever taken Civics and learned anything.

You must live in one sheltered environment if you are not aware of the problems that some illegals have brought to border areas at least, and ultimately to all of America. I am as big of a supporter as you of hard working people from Mexico and other countries to come here and find a better life, but you would be living in denial if you haven't recognized the financial woes caused by some illegals upon the infrastructure of border states and other states. If we need more legal immigration, lets do it by reforming the laws, but let us clamp down on illegal immigration, which also means screening out criminals, drug dealers, gangsters, and other undesirables that have come here to overload the prisons in California and other places.

3 Replies

I post common sense Civics principles, such as elected politicians to the executive branch should enforce existing laws, and it is voted thumbs down. I knew many folks here are liberal, but has our educational system been that bad, or are the liberals here that pathetic as to vote down something that is common sense?

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

ci, when anyone in the executive branch takes office, they take an oath to execute their duty to uphold the law and the constitution. That does not give them the privilege of ignoring the laws they don't like, okay. That is common sense for anyone that has ever taken Civics and learned anything.

So let's see.. When Bush decided to ignore the law about who could be wire tapped without a warrant that was OK as far as you were concerned but if a liberal ignores a law then it's not? Perhaps you can explain the dichotomy to us okie. Why is it OK for conservatives to ignore laws and you will defend their right to do so? Are you really that unprincipled okie?

3 Replies

@parados,

That involved the interpretation of the law, parados. In case you missed it, I believe Bush consulted his legal team about that before he did anything in that regard. In contrast, did FDR consult his legal team before he rounded up tens of thousands of Americans and placed them in concentration style camps around the country?

1 Reply

@parados,

He's unprincipled because a) he doesn't understand US laws, and b) he doesn't know it when he contradicts himself on the same issue.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

If we need more legal immigration, lets do it by reforming the laws, but let us clamp down on illegal immigration, which also means screening out criminals, drug dealers, gangsters, and other undesirables that have come here to overload the prisons in California and other places.

I always like this argument - which occurs in many countries. (We've a prison close to where I live, 100% of the inmates are illegal criminals ..... oops, it was only opened to be used as a detention prison before deportation ...)

0 Replies

@parados,

It wasn't only illegal wiretaps; he authorized torture of prisoners that's against the Geneva Conventions that we are a signatory to. He even suspended Habeas Corpus, only the second time in US history - after Lincoln.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

That involved the interpretation of the law, parados.

You mean you can interpret laws so you don't have to follow them? WOW....

Who knew?

Obviously you didn't or you would have known that any President can do that.

2 Replies

@parados,

But really okie. As a "business owner" you must understand the idea that funds are limited. You can't do everything because to do so would cost more money than you have.

Law enforcement has always been discretionary because it would cost trillions of dollars to enforce every law in every instance. Either you are for balancing the budget or you are for enforcing all the laws. You can't be for both okie. The reality is that at no time have all laws been enforced and no one other than some fools expect all laws to be enforced. We have to pick and choose which ones to enforce when. During Bush's term, the FBI reduced their bank robbery enforcement by cutting that staff quite a bit. So obviously Bush didn't care about bank robberies since it wasn't a priority and he wasn't putting enough resources toward it. But I didn't hear you complaining about how Bush needed to enforce all the laws then.

I think we can honestly say you have no principles okie. You only have partisan bull **** that you like to drag out while pretending you are holier than anyone else. I am tired of your act okie and see no reason to let you get away with it any more.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

ci, when anyone in the executive branch takes office, they take an oath to execute their duty to uphold the law and the constitution. That does not give them the privilege of ignoring the laws they don't like, okay. That is common sense for anyone that has ever taken Civics and learned anything.

Common sense? you don't have any common sense okie. You are only full of partisan BS that ignores facts.
link to image that shows Obama is spending more than Bush
http://amvoice.3cdn.net/e7116663544937ff9a_02m6b5oud.jpg

Since Obama is spending MORE on immigration than Bush, how can you argue that Obama is ignoring immigration? Wouldn't you have to argue that Bush was ignoring it?

0 Replies

@parados,

Whatever legal objections can be raised against Bush administration acts pale into insignificance compared with the enormity of the Obama administration's suspension of the 5th Amendment. Look up the text of a lawsuit just filed by the ACLU naming Obama, Panetta, and Gates as defendants:

Quote:

It was an extreme outrage of the highest order -- a shredding of the Constitution -- when George Bush imprisoned or even just eavesdropped on American citizens without any due process. But it's perfectly acceptable -- even noble -- for Barack Obama to kill them without any due process.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/30/assassinations

3 Replies

what's the point of even becoming president if you can't have a few people killed

there have to be some perks to the job, i mean flying around in airforce one probably gets pretty boring after a while

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Inmates are also "people." However, we confine them and, sometimes, even execute them.

Do you have any authority showing that the left tolerates illegals in order to get votes? I have my doubts on this.

It is a convenient myth that illegals do the work that citizens don't want to do. Citizens would happily take all those jobs were they properly compensated for them. For instance, citizens would do farm work for decent pay, and the price of the products would not go up that much. Moreover, farmers could switch to produce that lends itself to automated harvesting, and leave the production of produce requiring hand labor to Mexico and similar countries. Construction work used to produce prized jobs. However, since builders found that they could underpay illegals, 42 % of such jobs go to illegals. Etc.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Dear Helen, I know this will seem radical you because it's a very conservative idea and I am a very radical liberal but, we, here it goes. a basic premise of conservative economics is supply-demand. "illegal" immigration is an element of that premise "demand for labor results in supply" of that labor. restricting supply (closing the borders) drastically alters the "natural" economic self-leveling demand. I suggest to you Helen that an unfettered labor supply (legalize immigration) would result in the needs for labor (demand) balanced with immigrants seeking employment(supply).

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

That idea would only be true if wages stood at minimum subsistence level and all transfer payments (aka externalities like education, medical care, pensions) were abolished. Your model works fine for prices of non-subsidized commodities with highly elastic supply and demand, but not for labor.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

Have you researched Anwar Awlaki? He is a terroist advocate who preached the violent overthrow of our government and has encouraged others to kill innocent civilians and military. You qripe about obama but ok baby bushes lies and destruction of a whole country over oil and excuse his lies about weapons of mass destruction. Lady, you need a brain transplant!

1 Reply

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know