50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:17 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:


This closely parallels the results of the recent Rasmussen poll too. And Rasumussen was not commissioned by anybody but themselves.


How did you manage to go to that site? Although I'm registered with UPI, I got only this message:

United Press International wrote:
We are unable to locate the page you requested


McG will have to provide his link because I don't know where he found the article.

Here's a link to Zogby's 4/28/06 article that says much the same stuff though:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1102
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:19 pm
Thanks, but McG's report is from June 12 in an unknown year.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:20 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:


This closely parallels the results of the recent Rasmussen poll too. And Rasumussen was not commissioned by anybody but themselves.


How did you manage to go to that site? Although I'm registered with UPI, I got only this message:

United Press International wrote:
We are unable to locate the page you requested


I have special powers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:24 pm
I find the following to be very significant from your articlek/link:

And American adults seem undeterred by arguments that clamping down on immigration would impact the economy. A recent Zogby InterActive poll found

Then the question becomes, are they also willing to do without those goods and services now provided by those immigrants? Raise you hand.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:28 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I find the following to be very significant from your articlek/link:

And American adults seem undeterred by arguments that clamping down on immigration would impact the economy. A recent Zogby InterActive poll found

Then the question becomes, are they also willing to do without those goods and services now provided by those immigrants? Raise you hand.


Clamping down on the border or more effective immigration controls does not necessarily translate into shutting people out though. From what I see, most Americans are in favor of some kind of guest worker program; they just think those participating in it should apply from their home country rather than be granted amnesty and legality while they are breaking the law.

And even while this solution seems simple, there are some astute souls who also see some dangers with this solution as it will be very easy to demagogue and turn into a 'bidding war' as to who and how many people get to come on guest worker visas.

This is not a simple problem or we would have solved it a long time ago.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:32 pm
The polls we posted seem to have a clear conclusion....

77% of Americans support a path to earned legalization for illegal immigrants who have been here illegally for 5 years.

A majority of Americans (68%) say they don't want to give amnesty for illegal immigrants..

The logical conclusion is clear. The majority of Americans don't think that earned legalization for people who have been living good lives here is "amnesty".

I don't think Foxfyre or McGentrix are in the majority on this one. (I don't pretent to be in the majority, but I am just looking strategically and thinking that my side is looking OK politically).
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:48 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
The polls we posted seem to have a clear conclusion....

77% of Americans support a path to earned legalization for illegal immigrants who have been here illegally for 5 years.

A majority of Americans (68%) say they don't want to give amnesty for illegal immigrants..

The logical conclusion is clear. The majority of Americans don't think that earned legalization for people who have been living good lives here is "amnesty".

I don't think Foxfyre or McGentrix are in the majority on this one. (I don't pretent to be in the majority, but I am just looking strategically and thinking that my side is looking OK politically).


All this according to one poll that matches the conclusions you support.

Do you turn your blind eye on the polls that do not support your position purposefully?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:49 pm
McGentrix wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
The polls we posted seem to have a clear conclusion....

77% of Americans support a path to earned legalization for illegal immigrants who have been here illegally for 5 years.

A majority of Americans (68%) say they don't want to give amnesty for illegal immigrants..

The logical conclusion is clear. The majority of Americans don't think that earned legalization for people who have been living good lives here is "amnesty".

I don't think Foxfyre or McGentrix are in the majority on this one. (I don't pretent to be in the majority, but I am just looking strategically and thinking that my side is looking OK politically).


All this according to one poll that matches the conclusions you support.

Do you turn your blind eye on the polls that do not support your position purposefully?


Well McG,

The proof is in the politics. Let's see what happens.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:55 pm
ebrown, If we can depend on the "politics" to see how our government solves this immigration issue, I'll buy you a drink.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:58 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ebrown, If we can depend on the "politics" to see how our government solves this immigration issue, I'll buy you a drink.


Make that a Corona!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:02 pm
You got it, but you gotta win first! Make that two Coronas.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:27 pm
Actually my predictions are these:

I think the final outcome of this round of the immigration struggle (we seem condemned to do this every 20 years or so) will be something similar to McCain-Kennedy. A possible area for compromise may be different procedures for people here different times (this is the Mel Martinez idea).

I am doubtful that this outcome will be reached before the November elections. I think there will be a big national yelling match that will far exceed anything seen here. Cynically speaking, although I obviously like the Democrats more than the Republicans on this issue (not saying much here), I think the Democrats see advantage on dragging this out. This angers me, but there isn't anywhere else to go.

This will be a main theme (but perhaps not the main theme) of this election cycle.

I am confident that HR4337 will not happen nor will McGentrix's plan. The politics just aren't there in at core, the general American public (being far more compassionate than Foxfyre or McGentrix) won't stomach this. I think politically we will opt for a stalemate for a while.

I think politicians, who like Foxfyre and McGentrix are overestimating the public support or appetite for draconian measures, will end up being hurt by this issue.

I think that you will see an increasingly united front from American Latinos who will be increasingly joined by other minorities including African Americans.

I also think that Tom Tancredo is fast becoming my favorite politician. He is not only representing a rather disturbing side of American polity... he is also threatening to drive a wedge into the heart of an already fractured Republican party.

A two for one deal.... what more could a progressive ask for.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:37 pm
The only expansion I would make on the activists for this issue will be whites, Asians, and some politicians, but the end result will be a placebo.
0 Replies
 
el pohl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 02:31 pm
Well well. Before I narrate this, I have to say that I consider myself a member of the most un-mexican group of mexicans around. Heres another reason why:

My dad had the brilliant idea of filling the car (a Renault, not american) tank with some of San Ysidro's finest. Not a good idea. While he was on the short car line - full of american plates - a hundred mexicans or so gathered around, fat man in a sombrero directing the masses, cursing american people in general. Boomboxes playing mexican songs, ladies waving mexican flags.

Americans trying to cross the line asked my dad what was that all about. Of course, he didn't approve it. Apparently many where taking pictures with their cameraphones. Quite unfortuante that he is technologically challenged, so to speak.

This kind of events are disappointing. Theres a fine line between a pacific manifestation, and this.

Hopefully, REAL inmigrants (not people like this that sleep in TJ and work in SD) won't behave like that.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 02:37 pm
el_pohl wrote:

This kind of events are disappointing. Theres a fine line between a pacific manifestation, and this.


El_pohl, a minor correction on your English (which is quite good by the way).

The word "manifestation" is a false cognate. The meaning in English has nothing to do with the word "manifestacion" in Spanish. I think the non-Spanish speakers here will be a bit confused by this.

The phrase you probably are looking for is "peaceful demonstration". I mention this because you have used this word in a confusing way a couple of times.
0 Replies
 
el pohl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 02:53 pm
Woopsy Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 02:54 pm
Quote:
Mysteryman, way back when, offered the alternative solution. He wants us to round up anyone who is here illegally and ship them out of the country. He will back this up by closing off all services to them and their families so that the ones the authorites can't find will be basically starved out of the country.


You have twice now totally misstated my position.
You have also said that I support breaking up families.
I have NEVER said that,nor will I ever.
If you are going to restate my position,then at least have the decency to state it correctly.

I have been giving this some thought,and I think I have the solution that makes the most sense.

Lets start with the companies that hire undocumented workers...

I propose that those companies,when caught,pay a fine of $1,000,000 per day per undocumented worker or fake SS#.
Or,at the govt's discression,those companies forfeit ALL profits made while they had any illegal workers on their payroll.
If the company cannot afford the fine,all of their assets are seized by the govt and auctioned off,with the previous corporate officers and managers barred from bidding.

As for the illegal immigrants themselves...
Since we all know it is not feasible to round up 12 million people,then we can do this...

First of all,CLOSE THE BORDER.
Allow the military to patrol the border,and arrest ANYONE trying to cross illegally.

Second,as illegals are arrested,they will be held in detention centers near the border.
Those centers will be along the lines of Maricopa county and their tent cities.
As ilegals are brought there,they are fingerprinted and theit prints compared to all onidentified prints in the national database.
Any that match unsolved crimes,those people will be held for the authorities.
After the illegal immigrants are processed,they will be sent home.
Our govt will then charge the immigrants home country for our expense.
For every $1 we spend processing,feeding,and housing the immigrants,that persons home cuntry will be charged $500,000.
If that country refuses to pay,then we cut any financial aid to that country by that same amount.
If that doesnt work,then all assets of that govt in this country will be seized and the amount they owe us will be deducted.

As for how to treat the illegal immigrants,that is simple.
We look to their home countries laws.
For example,illegal immigrants coming from Mexico will be treated the same way that Mexican law says that illegal immigrants are to be treated in Mexico.
Illegals from France will be treated the way French law treats illegal immigrants in France,etc.

As for "breaking up families",here is my positiion.
I do NOT support breaking families up,but the choice would not be up to our govt.
Women that come into the US to have "anchor babies",will no longer be allowed.
We will give them a choice.
They can keep their baby,but the baby does not get US citizenship and they are both deported,or the baby gets US citizenship,but is taken from the mother and she is still deported,never to see the child again.
The choice is entirely up to the mother.

Then we change the wording of the 14th amendment.

Here is the current wording...

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We should change it to this...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States to legal citizens,residents,and visitors...

This is a plan that is fair to everyone,IMHO.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 03:00 pm
Just one question MM. How does the employer determine that the SS card is fake?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 03:04 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Our govt will then charge the immigrants home country for our expense.
For every $1 we spend processing,feeding,and housing the immigrants,that persons home cuntry will be charged $500,000.
If that country refuses to pay,then we cut any financial aid to that country by that same amount.
If that doesnt work,then all assets of that govt in this country will be seized and the amount they owe us will be deducted.

As for how to treat the illegal immigrants,that is simple.
We look to their home countries laws.
For example,illegal immigrants coming from Mexico will be treated the same way that Mexican law says that illegal immigrants are to be treated in Mexico.
Illegals from France will be treated the way French law treats illegal immigrants in France,etc.


I like those ideas - some fresh air in dusty international treaties, regulations and law.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 03:06 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Just one question MM. How does the employer determine that the SS card is fake?


Go to the SS admin website...
http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnv.htm

And get step-by-step directions,links,and forms.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/14/2025 at 06:38:51