50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:03 pm
The vote by the Senate doesn't mean too much, because there's a great divide between the House and Senate bills. The fun now begins.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:05 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Interesting that the percentage of Senators supporting an earned path to citizenship for people who have been here a long time is very close to the percentage of Americans who said they would support this.

Representative government at work.


If that was the only issue in that bill, it would be an easier matter to reconcile. But there are so many objectionable pieces to it, I will be amazed if they can get a majority in the House to support even most of it. Actually I think improving the immigration policy and making immigration easier would be supported by virtually 100% of the people. But a repeat of the 1986 bill is not going to be received favorable by even any plurality I think, and I think given a choice between not applying the law at all and in asking everybody to go home and come back right away legally, I think maybe 80% or more Americans would opt for the second option.


We will soon see if you are correct.

Just don't go whining about the democratic process (or the liberals or the media or any other part of the democratic process) when this doesn't come out the way you like. It just means that there isn't the political support you think for your position. Your error is that you think "most Americans" think the way you think they should think..

I predict the Senate bill won't even be let out of commitee by the Republicans for a fair up or down vote (and I can't wait to see this pointed out in the fall election).

There is going to be a loud attempt on the part of the Conservative Republicans to blame the Democrats for the fact that they blocked any chance of the bipartisan Senate compromise bill.

The November elections will tell us whether they were successful.

But, I must say I am feeling hopeful about the future of a real compromise from a Democratic controlled house.

Let me be the first to say a sound bite that I predict we will here in the next few weeks:

"This bill deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the House..."
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:05 pm
This immigration issue is sucha total boondoogle for the republican party the only possible winners are the dems. Sad really, I would like to see a true liberal position.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:09 pm
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
a) You want as many illegals to move here as want to move here

I want as many people to move here as there are jobs that need to be filled, Simple supply and demand, a conservative economic principle.


So if there are 10 million jobs to be filled,and 12 million American citizens or LEGAL immigrants looking for work,you want 10 million ILLEGAL immigrants to move to the US and take those jobs??

Yes, it's called capitalism. You may have heard of it or not. A very conservative republican idea dating back at least one hundred years. Can I assume you're a democrat in opposition?


Yes,I have heard of capitalism.
iAnd at least you are now on record as wanting illegals to come in and take jobs,and work for low wages,and generally get abused.
At least now we know where you stand.

Well we have progress in your understanding, limited as it may be. I can only assume you chose to understand with bias aforethought as well as iignorance. Not all that unusual for a republican.


YOU are on record wanting illegal immigrants to come in and take jobs,you admitted that.
You cant say you didnt say it,because its on record here.
YOU are on record for voting for and supporting the people who want illegal immigrants to come in and take jobs. Reap what you sow buddy. It's called the free market. You sound like a whinning Union worker. Are you becoming a liberal. If you have to compete with Mexicans it's your own fault you should have gone to college and got a better job. Now you want to blame the system. Free market buddy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:11 pm
Heck, mm was in the military, and got his fingers blown off by his own stupidity. That's where his brain used to be.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:21 pm
No, it is NOT the American way to approve of exploiting and abusing people no matter how much some seem to think it is. I think I prefer that all people be paid a prevailing wage and that it not be artificially depressed by people willing to work for less illegally. Help these people become legal without violating the existing law, pay them the wages that the market normally supports, and you have a win-win situation for everybody.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:23 pm
Amigo wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
a) You want as many illegals to move here as want to move here

I want as many people to move here as there are jobs that need to be filled, Simple supply and demand, a conservative economic principle.


So if there are 10 million jobs to be filled,and 12 million American citizens or LEGAL immigrants looking for work,you want 10 million ILLEGAL immigrants to move to the US and take those jobs??

Yes, it's called capitalism. You may have heard of it or not. A very conservative republican idea dating back at least one hundred years. Can I assume you're a democrat in opposition?


Yes,I have heard of capitalism.
iAnd at least you are now on record as wanting illegals to come in and take jobs,and work for low wages,and generally get abused.
At least now we know where you stand.

Well we have progress in your understanding, limited as it may be. I can only assume you chose to understand with bias aforethought as well as ignorance. Not all that unusual for a republican.


YOU are on record wanting illegal immigrants to come in and take jobs,you admitted that.
You cant say you didn't say it,because its on record here.
YOU are on record for voting for and supporting the people who want illegal immigrants to come in and take jobs. Reap what you sow buddy. It's called the free market. You sound like a whining Union worker. Are you becoming a liberal. If you have to compete with Mexicans it's your own fault you should have gone to college and got a better job. Now you want to blame the system. Free market buddy.


Please show me where I ever supported ILLEGAL immigration.
You cant,because it never happened
I am not now,nor will I ever,be stupid enough to join a union,so that part of your statement is also wrong.
I am also a college grad,so that part of your statement is also wrong.

That puts you 0 for 3.
Wanna try again?

CI said...
Quote:
Heck, mm was in the military, and got his fingers blown off by his own stupidity. That's where his brain used to be.


So,you have resorted to these kind of remarks now?
Funny,I always thought you were better than that.
I guess I was wrong.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:25 pm
Really the illegal immigrant thing can be summed up in one sentence.

Slavery is good for the economy.

If we are going to compete we have to get the cheapest labour possible. The worker is trying to get the best wage possible. The employer is trying to get the cheapest wage.The country who has the most slavery for preduction has the best economy. China.

So because we have so many workers rights we just export those jobs to countries with slavery. Immigration from South America is our answer to a more "productive" economy.

Thats why it won't stop we can't afford to stop it. That is also why you can't get a Politician to take a position on it. Sooner or later Mystery Man will have to admit to himself that he is more a part of a class then a part of anything else.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:41 pm
CI said...
Quote:
Many of us believe it is more important to live and act responsibly than it is to make as much profit as possible.


Tell me,how does this statement...
Quote:
Heck, mm was in the military, and got his fingers blown off by his own stupidity. That's where his brain used to be.


Fit into your previous comment?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:43 pm
mm, You just can't see the consistency, because your brain is calcified.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, You just can't see the consistency, because your brain is calcified.


I do see the consistency,thats the sad part.

You speak of the fact that you are above the name calling,the attacks,the petty stupidity,but as soon as you cant handle the discussion,you apparently throw those beliefs away.
You attack me,laugh at my wounds,and think that makes you a better person then anyone else.

Well,you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite of the first order,and a very small,pathetic person.
TEll me,do you also laugh at the mentally retarded,or the seriously physically handicapped?
Somehow,I think you do.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 07:54 pm
I never said I was "above name calling." Show me/us where I said such a thing.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 May, 2006 12:40 am
Amigo wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Amigo wrote:
The point of illegal imigration is cheap and unrepresented labour.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.
Depends on who you are. Ethically I believe it is bad to deny somebody a living wage. Inless you are joking?

I do happen to believe that the term "living wage" is mostly a buzzword. If you take it literally, it means the amount of money necessary for mere survival, which is something like 1-2 dollars a day. (Living in a shelter, eating the cheapest full-nutrition diet of soybeans, wheat, vegetable oil and vitamin pills ...) That wage is almost an order of magnitude lower than what people have in mind when they say this word.

I also happen to believe that noone has any duty to employ anyone, or to pay him any particular wage when he does. Every worker has the right to chose the employer who will offer him the best job at the highest wage. Conversely, every employer has a right to choose the employee who works the hardest for the lowest wage. In principle, I have no problem with any work contract that a willing employer and a willing employee have agreed on. Workers have an ethical claim on the employer holding up his side of the work contract. They have no ethical claim on the employer contracting to pay a higher wage than he voluntarily would.

But even if I went by your semantics and ethics, I would still come out in favor of immigration. The alternative -- no immigration -- may secure what you call living wages for Americans. But it would do so by denying even the free market wage to the Mexicans who would otherwise immigrate. This may make sense if you value the welfare of Americans over that of foreigners. But as an ethical position, I don't see why an American worker's claim to a generous wage is in any way superior to a Mexican worker's claim.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 May, 2006 01:19 am
squinney wrote:
Can someone help me with these numbers? If we are going to allow 2 million immigrants per year, but only something like 250,000 jobs are being created each month (3 million annually, right?) where are all these people going to work?

Assuming your numbers are correct, the answer seems obvious: Each of the two million immigrants per year is going to work in one of the three million jobs created per year. Even if we go by your arithmetics, the question should be: who are employers going to hire for the million other jobs per year?

But we shouldn't go by your arithmetics, because they ignore the impact of immigrants on job creation. Let's consider this impact: To a first approximation, if wages are constant (which they aren't, but I'll assume it for simplicity now), then each income earned by a foreigner in America takes away a job from an American. But at the same time, by the same logic, each income spent by a foreigner in America creates a job for an American. Each immigrant earns and spends one income in America. So the number of jobs in America will increase with the number of immigrants seeking jobs -- approximately by the same amount.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 May, 2006 02:19 am
Thomas wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Amigo wrote:
The point of illegal imigration is cheap and unrepresented labour.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.
Depends on who you are. Ethically I believe it is bad to deny somebody a living wage. Inless you are joking?

I do happen to believe that the term "living wage" is mostly a buzzword. If you take it literally, it means the amount of money necessary for mere survival, which is something like 1-2 dollars a day. (Living in a shelter, eating the cheapest full-nutrition diet of soybeans, wheat, vegetable oil and vitamin pills ...) That wage is almost an order of magnitude lower than what people have in mind when they say this word.

I also happen to believe that noone has any duty to employ anyone, or to pay him any particular wage when he does. Every worker has the right to chose the employer who will offer him the best job at the highest wage. Conversely, every employer has a right to choose the employee who works the hardest for the lowest wage. In principle, I have no problem with any work contract that a willing employer and a willing employee have agreed on. Workers have an ethical claim on the employer holding up his side of the work contract. They have no ethical claim on the employer contracting to pay a higher wage than he voluntarily would.

But even if I went by your semantics and ethics, I would still come out in favor of immigration. The alternative -- no immigration -- may secure what you call living wages for Americans. But it would do so by denying even the free market wage to the Mexicans who would otherwise immigrate. This may make sense if you value the welfare of Americans over that of foreigners. But as an ethical position, I don't see why an American worker's claim to a generous wage is in any way superior to a Mexican worker's claim.


I was giving MM a little imminent critique. But being that we fought our own revolution a long time ago and won we make our own law. Our law is based on inalienable rights where no class of people can infringe to far on the other.

If we are going to enter a "freemarket" social Darwinism thing the worker should know that all bets are off. If the freemarket is going to use everything it can to exploit anything it can and claim it as their right. Then we claim the same right. Because after all social Darwinism has only one rule.

"Let them eat cake" Is an idea that didn't work out so well nor has large margins in the distribution of wealth. Americans fought for and established what people the whole world over deserve and it started with a bunch of kick ass shop keepers and workers against the King. I'm sure he felt some kind of right over us and what we produce for him. He Lost.

And because he lost a living wage to Americans is more then soybeans and vitamin pills. If thats what a living wage means in other countries I suggest they have there own revolution.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 May, 2006 08:04 am
Amigo wrote:
Depends on who you are. Ethically I believe it is bad to deny somebody a living wage. Inless you are joking?


By that logic, you must think Mexico's treatment of her citizens is morally bankrupt.

I agree.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 12:37 pm
If you haven't read Ryan Sager's The Elephant in the Room, check it out the next time you visit your local library. A good read.

The following piece is his version of what our current debate on immigration must look like to the casual observor who has no dog in the fight. It's also a good read and, despite its similarity to an A2K message board politics thread, it might cause us to back up and rethink how we're debating the issue and look for more of those win-win solutions.

June 05, 2006
Building a Wall
By Ryan Sager

"Presidente Bush, build up that wall!"

So began the official portion of a protest in New York City on Saturday against what its organizers called "illegal mass migration." Usually, people in favor of building walls -- be they in the West Bank or along the Rio Grande -- try to shy away from the Berlin parallel. Yet the folks from New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement (NY I.C.E.) had no such qualms.

A little after 11 a.m. on a very gray day in Midtown Manhattan, in front of the Mexican Consulate on East 39th Street, Carolee Adams, president of the Eagle Forum of New Jersey, took to the bullhorn to deliver the first speech of the morning, an almost entirely incoherent discourse on the scourge of illegal immigration.

Her husband had died after 9/11 of asbestos-related cancer, she said, so America needs a more secure border with Mexico. (Hers is a personal tragedy, to be sure, but has nothing to do with Mexico or border security.) Illegal immigrants are sexual predators, she added. And illegal immigrants don't assimilate. What's more, Republicans had better watch out because she and other voters are fed up and are going to vote for whomever Lou Dobbs tells them to next time around.

On the bullhorn after Adams came a young woman identifying herself as Hispanic and a Democrat. She spoke for about 30 seconds to say that the rally wasn't racist -- as if anyone ever would have come away with such a bizarre idea.

Things got fun, however, as a man bearing a striking resemblance to Richard Dreyfuss (so striking, in fact, as to appear cultivated) took to the bullhorn to explain how Bush, a "son of privilege," cared not a whit for the working man. It was at that point that a young woman with an abundant concern for the working man -- why, she was brandishing a copy of Socialist Worker, for God's sake -- showed up to get the counter-protest going.

Alone in her rebellion for a few moments, she began a one-woman chant: "Don't give in to racist fear, immigrants are welcome here!" (All chants on the Left must rhyme -- it's policy.) She added: "Mexicans didn't cross the border, the border crossed them!" (A violation of the rhyming policy, to be sure, but it's tough to rhyme irredentism.)

It wasn't long before an anti-illegal-immigration protestor and a pro-illegal-immigration protestor were in each other's faces.

"Racists go home! Racists go home!" the counter-protestors chanted, including a young radical in a bright yellow shirt.

A man in a baseball cap from the other side charged up.

"You Nazi motherf--ker!" the kid in the yellow shirt yelled at him.

"Oh, I'm a Nazi, OK," the man in the baseball cap said.

"That's right, this is a fascist organization," the kid screamed, referring to the Minutemen, co-sponsors of the protest.

"I am out of work 30 weeks because of illegal immigration. I have three kids to feed," the man said.

"That's bulls--t ... blame NAFTA, blame Clinton ... don't blame people just coming trying to get a job."

No punches were thrown. A few more people crowded in, but the sides were separated and the police put up barricades as the camps of protestors dug in at their positions on opposite sides of 39th Street for the next hour or so.

Through the rain and through the largely indifferent traffic, they shouted their slogans back and forth at each other. "Fascistas! Fascistas! Fascistas!" the counter-protestors, who had been joined by a large Hispanic contingent, yelled, while waving Mexican flags. "Amnistia! Amnistia! Amnistia!" The protestors, meanwhile, held up their signs, with slogans like, "This is our tsunami," and, "Mexican pride belongs in Mexico."

"Why the Mexican flag?" I asked one counter-protestor, Armando Reyes, who was holding up a giant version of said flag.

"Why the American flag?" was his -- wounded seems like the right word -- response, gesturing toward the other side of the street, where burly guys were waving the stars and stripes like an extended middle finger. "It stands for all immigrants," he said, gesturing now to the Mexican flag. "We're hard working," he said, now gesturing to his work boots. He works, he said, in construction.

Ideally, of course, the American flag would stand for all immigrants, especially the hard-working ones who've braved many hardships and sacrifices to make it to, and make it in, the land of opportunity. But debates about what it means to be an American often bring out the very ugliest in our nation's character. And sometimes, hurt and rejected, those who wish to become a part of America let their worst out as well.

"Racists go home! Racists go home!" the counter-protestors chanted again, as the rally wound down.

The response, unintentionally sad, came from the other side: "We are home!"

Whether or not Congress ever allocates the funds, or President Bush ever signs on, a wall is nonetheless being built.

Ryan Sager is the author of The Elephant in the Room. He can be reached at [email protected].
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 02:39 pm
Just to make it clear, I am not at all sure how I stand on the whole immigration issue. What I don't like however is the ugliness that is spilling out of it.

Immigration debate stirs racial tensions
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 04:02 pm
revel wrote:
Just to make it clear, I am not at all sure how I stand on the whole immigration issue. What I don't like however is the ugliness that is spilling out of it.


You don't know where you stand, because you're honest, even with yourself. I've noticed this before.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 09:37 am
Foxfyre,

How can there be a win-win situation concerning the 12 million immigrants who are living among us illegally now?

I insist that they be given a chance to come out of the shadows and eventually to earn citizenship.

You insist that they be sent home-- either by deporting them or by making their lives so miserable they will crawl home on their own.

You refuse to accept any solution that "rewards" someone who breaks the law.

I refuse to accept the punitive measures that will mean that families will be broken, children will be taken from schools and workers will be taken advantage of with no protections.

I don't think that other than the Senate compromise, a win-win is possible. I consider this a workable compromise-- but your side is blocking it because the chance that a non-American immigrant might get a break is unacceptable to them.

This "win-win" line you keep saying is disingenuous. You are not willing to compromise.

We are willing to give you what you want -- "tightened border security", but you are unwilling to budge on what we want -- "compassion for people here now".
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 06/29/2025 at 08:35:49