[Desertdog]

If we can't deport them, cut out ALL benifits from taxpayers.

Chertoff: Not 'practical' to deport illegal aliens
Homeland security chief defends Bush plan, says border eventually will be impenetrable

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47415

In defending President Bush's so-called "guest worker" program for illegal aliens – which critics have dubbed an amnesty program – Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says it's just not practical to deport the millions of foreigners in the country illegally.

"The cost of identifying all of those people and sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars," Chertoff told Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity & Colmes" last night.


"One of the reasons I think that we've been focusing on the idea of a temporary worker program as part of a larger strategy for border security is because it would be a way to siphon off people who really want to do nothing more than work here, put them into a regulated program – we would know who they are – we would then be able to send them back at the end of a period of three years or six years. They would have made some money, they could take it back home, and then we could focus our other resources on the people that don't want to do it the right way, and we could get those people sent out."

Hannity challenged Chertoff, saying such a plan rewards those who "didn't respect our laws and sovereignty."

Asked the talk-show host: "Why don't we say, no, you're here illegally, you didn't respect our laws, you ought to go home?"

Chertoff again appealed to the issue of cost, saying, " Sean, you know, it's really an issue of practicality. I mean, as a practical matter, we've got to identify these people and pull them out of the shadows."

The Homeland Security chief emphasized that Bush's plan "is not an amnesty."

Said Chertoff: "The president's proposal is not a path to citizenship. It's clearly temporary, and it clearly envisions people who would have to commit to go back. … What this would let us do is acknowledge the reality that we've got hundreds and thousands of employers all over this country who are employing illegal aliens. Sometimes, individual citizens employing people in their home."


When Hannity suggested quadrupling the number of Border Patrol agents to help deal with the flood of illegals coming across the southern border, Chertoff pointed to training constraints.

"Right now, our capacity for training really is fully stretched," the official said. "Because it is obviously not an easy job, to train a Border Patrol agent. It's very dangerous work on the border."

Chertoff emphasized that since 9-11, the number of Border Patrol personnel has increased by 3,000.

The homeland security chief said he believes there will be a point in the future – using new technology and infrastructure, and more agents – when the border will be impenetrable.

"I think we have a day coming," he told Hannity. "I can't give you dates. It is not going to happen overnight."

[longeyes]

This Administration will say everything but the obvious and necessary: "This isn't your country, you didn't come here legally, you don't belong here, and neither you nor your children nor your extended family is going to profit from your illegal entry."

[Lone_Gunman]

The Republicans are worried they are going to suffer in the next election because they don't want to close the border, against the will of the people.

So they have to pay lip service, and hope Joe Sixpack won't notice they aren't doing anything.

The only thing the Republicans like more than power is money; and right now, businesses are making too much money off the backs of illegal aliens for the Republicans to want to do anything.

Sooner or later, someone will sneak in a dirty bomb, nuke, or other WMD across our unprotected southern border and attack a city in the US. When this happens, the blame will all be Bush's.

[etex]

Against the will of what people? The liberals?

[svtruth]

My mother was an illegal alien (long story)
but I agree, our gummint is not stepping up to the plate in discharging its duties.

[wingman]

The only thing the Republicans like more than power is money; and right now, businesses are making too much money off the backs of illegal aliens for the Republicans to want to do anything.


true, and making money off the taxpayer with subsidized labor. Sad to say
we live in a land of greed, quick, high profits tends to make corporations
look for "slave labor" in this country or anywhere they can find it, in time
we will slip to third world status if it continues.:banghead:

[R.H. Lee]

Chertoff gets an A+ for weasel-speak. What is clear, though, is that nothing will happen until the illegal problem reaches critical mass. By then it will be some other bureaucrat's problem. Republicans frost my ass. Their 'strategy' for everything is to foist it off on the next generation(s). 'Conservative' my butt. They don't 'conserve' anything. They roll over and pander to every politically correct interest group that comes along with its hand out. Borrow and spend, spend, spend. Grow government, add new bureaucracies, legislate against and systematically eliminate individual liberties. They represent me best when they're out of power, at least then they offer some resistance to Democrats rather than emulating them. :mad:
The Republicans are worried they are going to suffer in the next election
Here's hopin'..............


Sooner or later, someone will sneak in a dirty bomb, nuke, or other WMD across our unprotected southern border and attack a city in the US. When this happens, the blame will all be Bush's.

Who will waste no time in another expanded power grab.

[Standing Wolf]

"The cost of identifying all of those people and sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars"...

Much cheaper just to throw away America, I guess—especially considering how many "billions and billions of dollars" we're pouring into Iraq.

I can't tell the Republicrats from the Democans even with a score card.

[Bruce H]

Since Chertoff doesn't want to do his job as homeland security chief, fire his worthless ass.

[Biker]

The CIS did a study a few years ago that determined that the average illegal immigrant takes more than $55,000 out of our system over a lifetime than they put in. We have 10 to 20 million in our country right now and close to a million more entering every year.
I say that it would be cheaper to deport.
Biker

[longeyes]

. What is clear, though, is that nothing will happen until the illegal problem reaches critical mass.

Until?

I think Senor Malthus sneaked across about ten years ago.

[shermacman]

Chertoff: Not 'practical' to deport illegal aliens

Load them on the schools buses that they have sitting around in New Orleans.

[longeyes]

It's "impractical" now.

In ten years it will be impossible--except via civil war. Is that the underlying agenda?

[dasmi]

Since Chertoff doesn't want to do his job as homeland security chief, fire his worthless ass.
+1

[Waitone]

Secty Chertoff, its unrealistic for me to continue paying income tax so what say I just stop obeying tax law and you and your handler just let me be. How's that?

You will not know if its unrealistic until you try. You and Bush to date have not tried. You are getting close to and election and you just figured out your weenie is caught in your zipper. Its painful and you are looking for any way out.

No, Secty Chertoff, its unrealistic to expect the Great Fed Up to accept a new series of laws from the very same people to who refuse to enforce existing law. Can't trust you now; why should anyone trust you after the new laws are passed.

Bush's political capital ends at immigration reform.

[longeyes]

Skeletor said it wasn't "practical;" what he meant was that it wasn't commercial. I wish this guy would get his words right.l

[dasmi]

"The cost of identifying all of those people and sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars"...
Get the private sector involved somehow. We can do it in half the time, at half the cost.

[rick_reno]

It's "impractical" now.

In ten years it will be impossible--except via civil war. Is that the underlying agenda?

In 10 years this crowd that is currently in charge won't care. This is the age "I'm getting mine while the gettin is good" - and I believe that Bush and his crew are getting theirs and then some, with the underlying belief being that if they get enough they can insulate themselves from whatever crap will come down the pike in the future.

[Waitone]

Those who employ illegal immigrants should be the ones who pay the price of sending them back. Round up costs, housing costs, food costs, legal costs, transportation costs, and then they get to pay the fines.

[Standing Wolf]

Those who employ illegal immigrants should be the ones who pay the price of sending them back. Round up costs, housing costs, food costs, legal costs, transportation costs, and then they get to pay the fines.

If that's a motion, please consider it seconded.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

My car seats four, I'll volunteer to drive a few trips to the border. I'll use my gas to free up 20 illegals.

Thats 5 trips to the border free to you Mr. Chertoff. I'm certain a few of my buddies will volunteer a few free trips to the main gate.

Vick

[kbheiner7]

...as opposed to the billions and billions they're costing us now? :rolleyes: That's weak.

[Sam]

More excuses fro waste, ineficiency and coverup.:cuss:

Face it folks it's not practical to keep Chertoff!

Sam

[RealGun]

The ultimate excuse will be "for the children", so 'might as well deal with that up front. All this other stuff are petty arguments why the children should not be affected.

We could at least start by not making illegals comfortable here and writing home how others should follow. Pay them no form of assistance, no public services. Penalize employers. Monitor day laborer pickup points.

If the cost to the taxpayer is calculated, that should be worth at least a bus ticket to the border.

I doubt if everyone is prepared for seriously dealing with illegal aliens. I believe that would mean that everyone would have to carry proof of citizenship and be prepared to be asked to show it. No racial profiling. Everyone gets carded.

[71Commander]

Both the Repubs and the Dems want them here, so get use to it. As to the cost of sending them back, I suggest just letting the local agency do their job instead of having ICE/INS ordering them to be released.

And no, every time an alien crosses the border. America does not get stronger.

[Camp David]

Homeland security chief defends Bush plan, says border eventually will be impenetrable

How's that minefield construction project progressing? :p

[Cellar Dweller]

...it's just not practical to deport the millions of foreigners in the country illegally.

"The cost of identifying all of those people and sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars," Chertoff told Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity & Colmes" last night.


...we would then be able to send them back at the end of a period of three years or six years.

...I mean, as a practical matter, we've got to identify these people and pull them out of the shadows.

It's clearly temporary, and it clearly envisions people who would have to commit to go back.

OK Mr. Chertoff, what happens when the "guest workers" decide to overstay their 3- or 6-year period? You've just stated that they won't be deported anyway, so what is the difference?

If I was an illegal alien, I now know that the leadership of the U.S. lacks the stomach to deport me. Why would I give up a portion of my wages (more pay but now it'd be taxed, likely a wash) when I'd be liable for expenses (medical bills, schooling, insurance, etc.)?

[wingman]

If I was an illegal alien, I now know that the leadership of the U.S. lacks the stomach to deport me. Why would I give up a portion of my wages (more pay but now it'd be taxed, likely a wash) when I'd be liable for expenses (medical bills, schooling, insurance, etc.)?


10.4, most want to stay in the illegal underworld, some because of previous
crimes others because it's cheaper. In any event once again our leaders our
wrong.

[Waitone]

What Chertoff does not understand is an amnesty / work program will defeat the very reason for illegal immigration. The economic value to US business interests is because illegal immigrants work for less than market rates because they are not part of the system. They don't exist on the books hence don't collect other assorted costs associated with above table workers. A working program designed to bring them to the top of the table would defeat the very reason for hiring illegally.

In other words, I don't think you'll see a huge wave of immigrants falling all over themselves to register because the act of registering would dramatically reduce their economic utility. If however they are here to become Americans and get a slice of the American dream, they will register. The great irony is we could create a new massive program of work permits that would fall on its face. . . .just llike all the other immigration initiative of the past.

[RealGun]

What Chertoff does not understand is an amnesty / work program will defeat the very reason for illegal immigration. The economic value to US business interests is because illegal immigrants work for less than market rates because they are not part of the system. They don't exist on the books hence don't collect other assorted costs associated with above table workers. A working program designed to bring them to the top of the table would defeat the very reason for hiring illegally.

In other words, I don't think you'll see a huge wave of immigrants falling all over themselves to register because the act of registering would dramatically reduce their economic utility. If however they are here to become Americans and get a slice of the American dream, they will register. The great irony is we could create a new massive program of work permits that would fall on its face. . . .just llike all the other immigration initiative of the past.

Can you integrate the notion that "these are jobs that no one else wants"? I don't buy that. What I believe is that these are higher quality workers than Americans who might work for relatively low wages. Having workers who want to work and who show up sober is a very attractive idea.

[Waitone]

Can you integrate the notion that "these are jobs that no one else wants"? What needs to be added is ". . . . at the price level being offered." Every worker is its own business. Every business has a breakeven point where all fixed costs are paid and incremental dollars now accumulate. Like it or not we live in a society where there is a breakeven costs that is higher than comparable countries. Costs included in breakeven calculations include taxation, social security, workmans comp, housing, transportation, education, and medical care. Someone above the table includes all these costs in their breakeven calculation. By hiring under the table the employer does not have to foot the bill for a number of the costs that above the table workers have to pay. Employers can then offer a lower rate of employment and a willing worker can be found simply because that worker's breakeven cost is significantly lower and he can still accumulate wealth.

I hate being a one-note samba but the issue is the cost of government. We as a society simply can not afford the cost of a governmental leviathian in a society of mobile labor. I have yet to see an economic workup of the breakdown in costs of employing an illegal vs a top of the table worker. We need to look at the workup from the employers viewpoint and from that of the illegal in the US. I suspect we will see major bucks being made by the illegals working in the US under the table. People respond to economic incentives and given the intensity of illegal immigration I suspect the incentives are profound.

[longeyes]

Send the bill to Vicente Fox.

Which country is more powerful? From here it looks as if Mexico gets what it wants.

[garyk/nm]

Waitone makes a very good point. Let's take it a step further: once all of these workers are brought "above the table", who are they going to be competing against? Americans! Guess what is going to happen to the lower end of the wage scale for jobs Americans really want to do? This will have an effect on ALL wages over time.

[seeker_two]

Deportation too expensive?...

I bet we could cover the cost by controlling the Mexican oil fields....

When did the word "reparations" disappear from our vocabulary?... :scrutiny:

[longeyes]

Mexico wants a solution to its social problems, access to our labor markets, regardless of the consequences to our economy and polity. I don't see the same openness extended to us; in fact, Mexico is paranoid about violations to its sovereignty, bristling with machismo at every perceived slight.

We are going to need a much tougher President and a much tougher Congress to deal with this or the alternative will be, eventually, a form of vigilante response on a local level.

[longeyes]

Let's not forget that the master plan is to turn Canada, the United States, and Mexico into, de facto, one country. That lies behind everything that is said or isn't said, done or not done.

[R.H. Lee]

We are going to need a much tougher President and a much tougher Congress to deal with this or the alternative will be, eventually, a form of vigilante response on a local level.
Barring some catastrophic national or international event, that won't be happening anytime soon. The American people are, by and large, fat, dumb and lazy. We have been conditioned to expect government to provide, protect, and insure us prosperity. The people who occupy the Whitehouse and Capitol building simply reflect those attitudes. As far as any activism on local levels goes, it's not likely either. The central bureaucracy has become too powerful and intrusive and will most assuredly override any local action.

As long as the Walmarts continue doing a brisk business selling cheap foreign crap, and the money continues to flow into government coffers via withholding taxes, nothing will change. The politicians will continue to pander to whomever will re-elect them, and thanks to the Bush administration, the Democrats have now learned that fearmongering will allow them to accumulate even more power.

We're continually being split into 'haves' and 'have-nots'. The middle class is eroding; disappearing.

[longeyes]

I don't disagree with your premises, well, except...

We have not yet reached the flashpoint in terms of the costs, both economic and psychological, to the middle class. So far they are surviving, dealing with the erosion and entropy. At some point, though, they will start to lose the things they have taken for granted.

Let's say Prop. XIII were repealed to fund the consequences of illegal immigration. A lot of people would be forced out of their homes by confiscatory tax bills. And then...?

Will it get to that point? Yes, I think it will, and you seem to concur.

[Waitone]

Fat? Yep! Dumb? Yep! Happy? How true! Oblivious? Generally.

The one area where the stereotype breaks down is in illegal immigration. Polling shows a really wide gap exists. Neither side is attempting to bridge the gap. Ruling class is firm in what it wants and the taxpaying class has its own view of how to fix the problem. Illegal immigrration is the one issue that encapsulates the major gripes taxpayers have with their masters. The issue if volitile and its ramifications are profound.

[CAnnoneer]

I doubt if everyone is prepared for seriously dealing with illegal aliens. I believe that would mean that everyone would have to carry proof of citizenship and be prepared to be asked to show it. No racial profiling. Everyone gets carded.

Most people drive, don't they? If one does, one has to carry a driver's license anyway. If you have a valid license, chances are you are legit. It would also help to just start stating country of citizenship on the license. Negligible cost, great benefit. No wonder the leftists here in Cali spent so much money fighting Aanold to allow driver's licenses to be issued to illegals. If they were so livid about it, it must be good for the country. :D

[R.H. Lee]

Let's say Prop. XIII were repealed to fund the consequences of illegal immigration. A lot of people would be forced out of their homes by confiscatory tax bills. And then...?
That's a sensitive and frightening prospect to me, because it's possible as the 'gimme' voting constituency rabble increase. I'm 59 now and we nearly have our home paid off. As we go into the fixed income years of retirement, there's gonna be no way we can pay unlimited property taxes. I don't know how many Californians are in the same situation as we are but I'd wager enough to put up a fight.

[EghtySx]

They don't work cheaper. They work for the same or a bit more than many citizens do when you factor in all the free services they recieve. The difference is that our tax money pays the rest of their wages in the form of free healthcare, food stamps, sec 8 housing, etc. etc. That's how companies get cheaper labor, We the People pay the rest of the illegal's salaries.

[Waitone]

Most people drive, don't they? If one does, one has to carry a driver's license anyway. If you have a valid license, chances are you are legit.Precisely the reason all hell is breaking out over states like NC which issue DL's using sterling ID's like taxpayer ID numbers (something the DoJ has said to knock off), matricula cards, and bank accounts. NC used to issue a DL with a matricula card (actually you didn't need an ID, you could just sign an affadavit saying you are who you claimed to be). Get the DL and go to Bank of America and open a checking account. DoJ said to fix it so now the scam is BoA takes the matricula card to open a checking account. Then the perp takes the bank account to NC where they issue a DL. It is a scam and for the life of me I don't understand why someone hasn't body slammed NC for this crap.

The presumption is if you have a valid DL you are in the US under legit circumstances. Not true when NC throws a DL in the backseat as you drive by. NC is the east coast destination for illegals because it is so easy to get a DL. Take a NC DL and go to any state you want, board any plane you want, open any bank account you want, get any credit card you want, buy any house you want, sign any contract you want. OH, BTW, you can register to vote thanks to Motor Voter and criminally slack voting laws. States like NC and the other 5 are the source of a lot of mischief WRT illegal immigration.

[TheEgg]

1. ALL the research shows that the American people (80%+) are truly angry about the illegal immigration situation and want something done.

2. Normally, when that many voters are on one side of an issue, the political creatures answer to their survival instincts and at least do something about the issue, even if it is ineffective.

3. The political creatures are doing NOTHING about the issue.

Which leads me to ask, why? The ONLY reason that makes any sense is money. SOMEONE is pushing huge sums of money onto the political creatures, or those who control them, to keep the situation status quo.

Chertof is just an example of one of the political creatures who has been given his orders to not rock the boat, and make sure that the money keeps flowing in to the coffers.

The consequences for the country, of course, do not count.:barf:

[NCP24]

put them into a regulated program – we would know who they are – we would then be able to send them back at the end of a period of three years or six years. Regulated programs my butt, even the programs do a terrible job of regulating. It’s not uncommon for these people to swap identities with the unregulated crowd. They can work more over time, take more days off, seek medical treatment, file multiple healthcare claims on the same policy, share auto insurance, avoid large deductibles, give false information to police and fail to show up in court.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we all had multiple aliases and could pass the cost on to someone else?

Those who employ illegal immigrants should be the ones who pay the price of sending them back. Round up costs, housing costs, food costs, legal costs, transportation costs, and then they get to pay the fines. Excellent idea!

[longeyes]

That's a sensitive and frightening prospect to me, because it's possible as the 'gimme' voting constituency rabble increase. I'm 59 now and we nearly have our home paid off. As we go into the fixed income years of retirement, there's gonna be no way we can pay unlimited property taxes. I don't know how many Californians are in the same situation as we are but I'd wager enough to put up a fight.


You can also expect, from the Left, a "wealth tax," a yearly hit based on your net worth, not income. If you have an expensive house, current assessment, and someone wants you to ante up three, four per cent "to help the downtrodden" (illegal aliens) that could be a problem. It would be for me.

[longeyes]

Most people drive, don't they? If one does, one has to carry a driver's license anyway. If you have a valid license, chances are you are legit.

Really? You can take the test in Spanish.

[RealGun]

3. The political creatures are doing NOTHING about the issue.

Which leads me to ask, why? The ONLY reason that makes any sense is money. SOMEONE is pushing huge sums of money onto the political creatures, or those who control them, to keep the situation status quo.

Chertof is just an example of one of the political creatures who has been given his orders to not rock the boat, and make sure that the money keeps flowing in to the coffers.

The consequences for the country, of course, do not count.:barf:

Both advocating free trade and looking the other way on illegal immigration relate to a concern for inflation. If you suddenly pull the plug on cheap labor, there will be hell to pay, tanking investments, all sorts of economic repercussions. The amnesty idea was a way of letting the economy down more gradually, providing time to shed the dependence on this cheap labor source.

From what I have seen, commercial construction costs will be hit the hardest. Among these are the day laborers picked up every morning in front of the Seven-Eleven, no questions asked.

[Master Blaster]

Its very simple really,

Fine anyone caught with an illegal alien working in their shop $100,000 PER ILLEGAL.

The Govt can then use the money collected after the FBI and the Immigration service raid Walmarts coast to coast to deport the illegals.
Once a few folks get hit with the $100,000 fine the demand for illegal workers will dry up and people will be turning them in right and left.

They can send them to Iraq, and put them to work for Haliburton, Kellog Root and Brown, cleaning toilets there.

[RealGun]

Once a few folks get hit with the $100,000 fine the demand for illegal workers will dry up and people will be turning them in right and left.

Hmmm. A bounty on illegal alien employers. Now there's an idea. First you have to want to get rid of the workers.

We have to remember that it is unlikely that all illegal immigrants have jobs.

[NCP24]

Both advocating free trade and looking the other way on illegal immigration relate to a concern for inflation. If you suddenly pull the plug on cheap labor, there will be hell to pay, tanking investments, all sorts of economic repercussions. The amnesty idea was a way of letting the economy down more gradually, providing time to shed the dependence on this cheap labor source.

Really, well if the majority of the people, especially our senior citizens realized just how much free trade is involved in the medical/pharmaceutical field heads would roll.

If you suddenly pull the plug on cheap labor Some business owners and upper management would just have to tighten their belts a bit more. America won’t crash, it just means less fancy homes and vacations for the rich.

I say a $100,000 fine PER ILLEGAL.

[R.H. Lee]

You can also expect, from the Left, a "wealth tax," a yearly hit based on your net worth, not income. If you have an expensive house, current assessment, and someone wants you to ante up three, four per cent "to help the downtrodden" (illegal aliens) that could be a problem. It would be for me.
I see an ordained ministership in my future with my assets being donated to the church. Our house will become the church's parsonage and therefore tax exempt. Or does that sound like 'Waco West'?

[CAnnoneer]

I see an ordained ministership in my future with my assets being donated to the church. Our house will become the church's parsonage and therefore tax exempt. Or does that sound like 'Waco West'?

And I see leftists claiming tax exemption for religious organizations should be revoked because it is "unfair" and diverts money from the "disadvantaged". The wolf can always come up with justifications why eating the sheep is the "moral" and "enlightened" thing to do...

[longeyes]

Both advocating free trade and looking the other way on illegal immigration relate to a concern for inflation. If you suddenly pull the plug on cheap labor, there will be hell to pay, tanking investments, all sorts of economic repercussions. The amnesty idea was a way of letting the economy down more gradually, providing time to shed the dependence on this cheap labor source.


The real problem, as I see it, is our obsession with the American consumer. Rich countries have to be able to produce, and we're losing that ability. It ain't about shopping! We've been living off the pleasure-principle since WW II and the bill's coming due.

Wal-mart is a perfect example of the problem with "free trade." It is basically a Chinese outlet store that hires illegal aliens and sells to illegal aliens. Does Wal-mart ask whether the goods they buy are made by slaves? Do they ask if stolen American software went into the manufacturing? No, they are above such moral niceties, all in the good of offering cheaper stuff for American shoppers.

Cheaper stuff is going to be our downfall. Maybe we need less and better and a stronger moral and spiritual nation, not just people who are born, consume, and die.

[longeyes]

And I see leftists claiming tax exemption for religious organizations should be revoked because it is "unfair" and diverts money from the "disadvantaged". The wolf can always come up with justifications why eating the sheep is the "moral" and "enlightened" thing to do...

Look ahead. Two Americas. And one will be one vast tax-exempt religious organization called The Church of Old America, aka the Red States. Let the socialists make and spend their own damn money.

Yeah, I'm joking...or am I?:D

[RealGun]

Look ahead. Two Americas. And one will be one vast tax-exempt religious organization called The Church of Old America, aka the Red States. Let the socialists make and spend their own damn money.

Yeah, I'm joking...or am I?:D

You know, the "reds" used to be a pejorative. Now I wouldn't mind claiming to be one, proud resident of a Red State.

[EghtySx]

If you suddenly pull the plug on cheap labor

As I said before their labor isn't cheaper, it is just subsidized by We The People in the form of free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, and countless other social programs I don't know about.

[NCP24]

Cheaper stuff is going to be our downfall. Maybe we need less and better and a stronger moral and spiritual nation, not just people who are born, consume, and die. AMEN

As I said before their labor isn't cheaper, it is just subsidized by We The People in the form of free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, and countless other social programs I don't know about. We also pay for it in terms of lost prevention and community standards.

[TheEgg]

Don't try to cheat the market folks, the market always wins.

[wingman]

The real problem, as I see it, is our obsession with the American consumer. Rich countries have to be able to produce, and we're losing that ability. It ain't about shopping! We've been living off the pleasure-principle since WW II and the bill's coming due.

Wal-mart is a perfect example of the problem with "free trade." It is basically a Chinese outlet store that hires illegal aliens and sells to illegal aliens. Does Wal-mart ask whether the goods they buy are made by slaves? Do they ask if stolen American software went into the manufacturing? No, they are above such moral niceties, all in the good of offering cheaper stuff for American shoppers.

Cheaper stuff is going to be our downfall. Maybe we need less and better and a stronger moral and spiritual nation, not just people who are born, consume, and die.



Ahem brother, we are a nation of greed, our wealthy care nothing for our country, we ship all our manufacturing to the third world.
We import poor under educated workers in the millions, our middleclass is disappearing, most of our work is information or tossing hamburgers, we have become a nation of double speak or cheerleading (we need to be lean and mean, etc).
In truth very little real work is being done in America and in the end we
will pay for it big time.:cuss: