Illegal Immigration-How to fix it?


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

garyk/nm
April 2, 2006, 04:01 PM
This thread is intended only for those of us who see illegal immigration as a threat to our way of life and the security of our country, as a means for discussing how we might go about influencing our elected officials to see things our way, and not pander to special interest groups.
If you disagree with the basic premise of the topic, please read no further. I am not interested in debating the merits of the topic. Partycrashers are not welcome and will be reported to mods as disruptive. Fair warning.

Now, on with the show....

What is the general opinion on letter-writing to elected officials? Is it having any effect, or are we wasting time? Any better suggestions? Should we be looking for groups to organize large demonstrations, as seems to be working for the opposition?
Consider the timeliness of your suggestions, as this matter is under debate now in Congress, not after the next election cycle.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illegal Immigration-How to fix it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MICHAEL T
April 2, 2006, 04:24 PM
I have written till, I tired or writing. They don't seem to listen in Washington. to the Tax payer. They will take note of the protesters how ever and they will back down.. Our country is in a terrible shape and getting worst We have no real choice in who runs for office. Thats decided in back rooms by the party faithful. We are being slowly moved to a one world type gov. With our rights history. I 'm afraid the people will need to retake our country by force.and that will destroy the US forever.

ajkurp
April 2, 2006, 04:50 PM
Eliminate the redistribution of earned wealth we amerikan socialists call welfare. I mean both government welfare to individuals as well as welfare to corporations. Get the government out of subsidized health care.

Call halt to the "War on Drugs". That also removes incentive to infiltrate our borders for illegal profit.

Too bitter a pill to swallow? Then learn to speak Spanish.

Jammer Six
April 2, 2006, 04:51 PM
I've contacted every one of my representatives, and told them what I think.

I'm quite certain that the result will be what we want.

Kodiaz
April 2, 2006, 05:40 PM
I contacted my reps. as well Mel Martinez is a RINO and has chimed in supporting the illegals.


My .02 is forget the illegals entirely. Target their employers illegals have no money and in reality they have nothing to lose and everything to gain in coming here. Now the employers of illegals they have something to lose, money.
Lock these bums up for hiring illegals and they will quickly start making sure all of their employees are Americans.


Going to court to fight off a felony is expensive and time consuming when your innocent.


After people stop hiring illegals they will stop coming because there will be no work for them.

Alex45ACP
April 2, 2006, 05:41 PM
Eliminate the redistribution of earned wealth we amerikan socialists call welfare. I mean both government welfare to individuals as well as welfare to corporations. Get the government out of subsidized health care.

Call halt to the "War on Drugs". That also removes incentive to infiltrate our borders for illegal profit.

Too bitter a pill to swallow? Then learn to speak Spanish.

+eleventybillion

Shotgun12
April 2, 2006, 05:43 PM
You'll have to go to some other site .... like Near Death Experiments, if you care about what's happening to this country - and want to discuss it.

http://neardeathexperiments.com/smf/index.php

Waitone
April 2, 2006, 06:12 PM
llegal immigration, as politically hot a topic as it is, just doesn't really have anything to do with what this forum is for.http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=192734 discusses your position in detail.

That said, our society is quickly approaching nut crackin' time. Our elected officials (remember them? the one's responsible for the mess) would be well advised to do something substantial or events will take on a life of their own. And, No, I am not talking about violence. I am talking about a revolt at the ballot box that would make 1994 look to be a warmup. I'm talking about the rise of passive civil disobedience by heretofore law-abiding citizens who simply refuse to be played the fool.

The gap between the ruler and the ruled with respect to illegal immigration is wider than any gap I've seen in my lifetime. As someone who grew up in the late 60's and early 70's that is claiming something. For those not alive at that time or for those who have no idea of period history, western civilization in general and US society in particular came very close to spinning apart. At that time the gap was over the Vietnam war and a host of other issues which fed into it. We have the same thing going on with illegal immigration with the added feature of significant percentages of average citizens directly impacted. This issue will not go away, will not be covered over, and will not be reverse spun for the simple reason far too many people have direct, personal knowledge and understanding of what is actually happening.

RealGun
April 2, 2006, 07:24 PM
I think the Senate is handling it well. I can't say the same for the House bill. It will be interesting to see what hyrid bill ultimately results.

The only thing I will be writing in about is proposing to clarify under what conditions a child born in the US becomes a citizen and what that means to his parents.

longeyes
April 2, 2006, 07:45 PM
I've tried writing my representatives about many things. Boxer, Feinstein, Waxman? Right. They hang on my every word.

New parties are one likely answer. Civil disobedience is probably another fuure development. The real way to get their attention is to cut off the money. How we do that remains to be seen.

garyk/nm
April 2, 2006, 08:26 PM
The real way to get their attention is to cut off the money. How we do that remains to be seen.

I think I posted this once before (hey, I'm old...it's allowed), go to your HR or payroll office and request a new W-4*. Change your withholding to married-15.
Little to no taxes taken out. If 10 million folks did this, how long do you think it would take for the Feds to notice a severe lack of money coming in?

* if they ask why, tell them that you got a very large refund for last year and you are trying to adjust to compensate.

spartacus2002
April 2, 2006, 08:31 PM
The way to fix it has two centers-of-gravity, one bottom-up and one top-down.

1. Bottom-up: each individual American refuses to do business with those who hire illegals. No more eating at mexican restaurants who have 20+ busboys who don't speak English. No more saving $2K on your new roof by using contractors who use illegal labor.

2. Top-down: the government must establish the political willpower to secure the border, round up and deport illegals, and crack down on businesses using illegal labor. AND, AND, come up with a legitimate easy system for a limited number of migrant laborers to come to America WITHOUT EARNING CITIZENSHIP -- and oh by the way, if you're already here illegally, you ain't eligible, brah.

3. Constitutionally: explicitly amend the Constitution to state that simply being born on American soil doesn't make you a citizen; you have to have one or both parents as citizens. No more anchor babies.

We can all do #1 individually. However, getting #2 to happen looks like it is doomed, as the politicians can read demographic trends as well as any of us, and now is their big chance to accellerate the growth of the Hispanic population in hopes of securing their votes. I've written, faxed, emailed, called till I'm blue in the face.

Face it: either the government says No Amnesty and devotes resources to expelling illegals, or America begins becoming El Norte, with Anglo-Americans in the minority. There is very little middle road.

Nitrogen
April 2, 2006, 08:41 PM
Vigorosly enforce existing law, for a start.

longeyes
April 2, 2006, 09:25 PM
I think I posted this once before (hey, I'm old...it's allowed), go to your HR or payroll office and request a new W-4*. Change your withholding to married-15.
Little to no taxes taken out. If 10 million folks did this, how long do you think it would take for the Feds to notice a severe lack of money coming in?

Some 14-year-old probably has the answer to this problem in his backpack right now.

I think if Congress insists on giving away citizenship on the pretext that there are too many miscreants NOT to make them citizens, a lot of people will just starting ignoring the law. It won't happen all at once, just inexorably. This is how people learn to deal with a fascist government. Perhaps this is exactly what The Few have wanted: a good reason to crack down.

longeyes
April 2, 2006, 09:33 PM
"Old America" is being swapped out for "New America." What abscessed part of Ted Kennedy's brain this master plan emanated from I'm not sure, but we can trace the roots of what we're dealing with now back to his 1965 bill.

We have no reason to assume, at this juncture of American history, that these tens of millions of proposed newcomers with suffrage are going to be assimilated into anything resembling the America we have known. For those who want America to be more like Mexico, the proposals are, well, perfect, that's all I can say.

longeyes
April 2, 2006, 09:36 PM
I know many people on this forum think secession is far-fetched. I don't. I think there will be many Americans, looking at what's on the horizon economically, who are going to start thinking about how they can detach their fortunes from this runaway train called The New America. How many of today's American citizens are going to agree with a massive tax increase to cover the amnesty brainstorm?

lamazza
April 2, 2006, 09:58 PM
I worked as a bartender in downtown chicago for many years. The entire kitchen as well as 3/4 of the waitstaff was illegal-mostly mexican, but many eastern europeans as well. I watched as 3-5 americans came in every day looking for a job, and were turned away. Not only were these illegals taking american jobs, that americans DID want, they were very belligerent towards americans.
After having seen more than enough of this I called immigration-who did NOTHING. And a second time 2 months later resulted in the same. Not even a visit.
I really wish there was something that we could legally do to protect our country and our jobs.

MadMag
April 2, 2006, 10:10 PM
First, I have an issue with the term illegal immigration…it is illegal alien. You have legal immigrants (citizens) and illegal aliens. The word immigration makes it sound more politically correct. To my knowledge when INS returns illegal’s the paper work says alien (or un-documented) …. not immigrant.

Second, the people that represent illegal aliens are now saying they are the “Backbone” of this Country. I am older guy, but did I blink and miss something? What about the average Americans that helped win WWII . Or the Americans that have built and operated our factories and built our hospitals and universities to be some of the best in the world? I thought these people were the Backbone of this Country.

Third, I think an issue that is still not discussed enough is the huge money that is spent supporting the medical systems that serve illegal aliens. Congress has allotted millions to hospitals in all border states to provide free medical services for illegals. If a hospital does not participate, then they do not receive federal funds for non-paying emergencies. We, the legal tax payers are all paying for this free service.

One of the worst arguments the illegal alein’s supporters use is that they contribute so much to our economy…not so….it costs us much more than they contribute. In fact, they send much of their earnings back to Mexico.

Now, I am not inhuman. I understand someone trying to better their living standards, but we cannot support the entire world. While we suffer, the Mexican government goes about it’s normal corrupt way and takes money for its parties without creating new jobs in Mexico. I think if we are strong in the USA it will help Mexico in the long haul by forcing them to address the real issues at hand and creating more internal jobs.

Didn’t mean to make this long, but this is one of my hot buttons.

crazed_ss
April 2, 2006, 10:41 PM
The way to fix illegal immigration is to fix Mexico.
Dont ask me how to do that.
The country is lacking a viable middle class to sustain itself and the government is too corrupt. With no rule of law, choas reigns.

feedthehogs
April 2, 2006, 10:44 PM
You can end it if you all decide to:
1. Quit wanting cheap Walmart pricing.
2. Work for 3 to 6 dollars/hr.
3. Do hard labor such as digging a ditch, landscaping, washing dishes, car wash, factory labor, etc.
4. Willing to cut out all beni's.
6. Are willing to pay much more in everything you do and buy.

Until then shut up and quit complaining. Congress won't do nothin cause their smart enough to recognize the economic impact throwing the illegals out would cause. All they will do is give cheap lip service.
Spend some time outside of chat rooms and fantasy SHTF dreams and educate yourselves on the reality of life!

Feel free to report me as a subversive.


Economics of immigration could defy laws
Experts: Despite greater enforcement, illegal workers will continue to come

Jack Dempsey / AP
Updated: 3:16 p.m. ET April 2, 2006
To the mostly immigrant workers and American employers who cross paths at El Centro Humanitario — a former car wash converted to a day labor agency on the fringes of downtown Denver — the nation’s heated debate over illegal immigration is no abstract concept. It’s economic reality.

“If people are willing to pay another $20,000 for their $200,000 house, then fine,” said Chuck Saxton, a contractor who regularly hires immigrant workers for a fraction of what full-time U.S. workers would cost, to help him build additions and finish basements for Denver-area homeowners. “But if not, we need to talk about the consequences of throwing out 12 million people.”

Those consequences — for U.S. businesses and consumers and the illegal workers who provide a consistent source of cheap, dependable labor — are impossible to deny.

That point has been largely overlooked as congressional lawmakers clash over proposals to step up enforcement and legalize foreign workers. But, regardless of the measures they devise, the economic forces underpinning illegal immigration will be exceedingly difficult to alter, experts say.

“If we enact a law that makes clear we’re going to dramatically increase enforcement without allowing greater legal flows, employers and illegal immigrants will find ways around it,” said Gordon Hanson, an economist at the University of California at San Diego.

While it is difficult to predict precisely what would happen as a result of future changes in the law, Hanson’s assertion is backed up by past experience.

Illegal workers will continue to come
The last time Congress overhauled immigration laws in 1986, the rhetoric was at least as heated and sentiments were largely the same. Illegal immigration was alleged to pose a threat to national security. Critics said unauthorized workers were taking good-paying American jobs. Foreign workers were accused of taking advantage of the nation’s generosity by soaking up public benefits.

In the end, lawmakers passed a bill that granted amnesty to workers already here, while promising to clamp down on the flow of new arrivals. Congress ordered employers to require documents from their workers, and said there would be consequences if they didn’t.

Illegal workers, though, kept coming.

In the two decades since, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States has grown from about 4 million to between 11.5 million and 12 million, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. More than 40 percent — about 4.4 million people — have arrived within the past five years.

They account for about one in every four farm workers, hold 17 percent of all jobs in cleaning and building maintenance, 14 percent of all construction jobs and 12 percent of food preparation jobs, the center says.

Would tough new laws change that? The 1986 reforms failed because border and workplace enforcement were both weak, experts say.

Some lawmakers are calling for all employers to screen workers through a national computer system designed to catch those with fraudulent documents. A bill already passed by the House would require much more aggressive border enforcement, including an extensive fence along the frontier with Mexico.

Unlike the enforcement-focused House measure, a bill from the Senate Judiciary Committee calls for offering workers who are already here a chance at amnesty and citizenship over an extended timetable. At the same time, it would create a guest worker program to allow a continued flow of temporary workers, a response to intense lobbying by business groups.

But experts say that while the provisions in some of the bills might slow the steady stream of arrivals, that would only be temporary.

“When all the dust clears, we’re going to have higher levels of legal immigration and lower levels of illegal immigration, but within a few years we’ll return to the levels that we’ve seen,” said Peter Schuck, a Yale University professor specializing in immigration law and policy. “Immigrants will figure it out. The zeal of enforcement will wane.”

The problem is that enforcement is no match for potent underlying economics, experts say.

More than half the illegal workers in the United States are from Mexico, where the past decade’s currency devaluation and debt crisis have created tremendous economic volatility. At the same time, the Mexican labor market has been fed by a baby boom a generation behind the one in the United States. The combination has created tremendous economic pressure, pushing a surplus of workers to seek out opportunities better than those offered at home.

U.S. demand for cheap labor
The Rev. Ricardo Hernandez of Sts. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church in Rockford, Ill., knows their stories well.

“I think they will keep on working no matter what changes are made in the law, and they’ll still be hired by many business people who want only to find cheap labor,” said Hernandez, many of whose parishioners are undocumented immigrants from his native Mexico, working in construction, retail and restaurant jobs. “Things are so bad in Mexico that they will have to work here, and they will stay even if the pay is very low.”

Hernandez points to one couple at his church, both in this country illegally, who work at a restaurant in nearby Belvidere, Ill., for $3.50 an hour — well below the federal minimum wage of $5.15 and Illinois’ $6.50 hourly minimum.

Even as overseas economics have pushed workers to leave their home countries, the rapid growth in the U.S. economy during the 1990s fueled huge new demand. It took a while for the boom to reach California, long home to the nation’s largest immigrant population, where post-Cold War cuts in defense spending prolonged a downturn. But robust economic growth elsewhere drew large numbers of new immigrants to states that had previously seen relatively few, and into new industries, too.

Illegal workers flocked to factory jobs in Illinois, to clean hotel rooms and work in restaurants in Georgia, and to build homes in North Carolina and Colorado.

Saxton, the Denver-area contractor, said he began hiring immigrant workers about four years ago, after some of the American day laborers he’d previously hired arrived for work drunk. He needed 15 men for 3 days to dig out a basement, and found he could hire immigrant workers for $8 an hour.

He now pays $10 to $12 an hour. But he points out that is much cheaper then the $35 an hour he’d have to pay for full-time U.S.-born employees, including the cost of worker’s compensation insurance.

“These guys work hard, they’re honest, they’re nice. I trust them with my tools, money anything,” Saxton said.

Overstated importance?
While illegal immigrants play a crucial role in the economy, their importance is sometimes overstated. Foreign workers account for less than 5 percent of the nation’s labor force. They are concentrated by industry and geography in ways that would cushion the larger economy should they removed from it. While their labor affects the prices consumers pay for some goods, it is but one component.

Proponents of tougher immigration laws argue that the country has workers capable of doing the jobs done by immigrants, but that businesses must pay more.

“At what point in the last 20 years did Americans wake up and say ’I no longer want to work in construction for $17 an hour?”’ said John Keeley of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates stricter controls.

But business groups argue that growth in the number of workers in the United States is slowing, that most young workers do not want jobs that are often seasonal and temporary and involve tough manual labor.

The solution is a “practical real-world guest worker program that permits an appropriate number of guest workers in this country to address a growing need for labor to keep our economy strong,” said Bob Dolibois, executive vice president of the American Nursery and Landscape Association, which has lobbied for such a change in the law.

The reality, though, is that given the motivations of the businesses and workers at its center, regulating the flow of workers at the periphery of the economy will be very difficult, whether or not immigration is legal, experts say.

“You’re trying to legislate and end immigration in the face of tremendous economic demand for illegal immigrants,” Hanson said. “Just like with the illegal drug trade, we can say it’s illegal, but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

woerm
April 2, 2006, 11:18 PM
patrol border, detain illegals, imprison for about 5 years and then deport, felony arrest and prision record would prevent 'legal' immigration later. ie we have fingerprints etc.:uhoh:

deny entry to pregger female non citizens period. non citizen shows up at hospital, deport don't treat.

detail illegals when found export to capital city of home country, then turn them over to local federal police w/ felony record (we have their prints). ship children of illegals with them, the kids can come back at 18 when they decide to claim one citizenship or the other.

set up real time id check at employment. make possession of fake id fed felony.

enforce daylights out of the above issue would go away in 90 to 100 days at step 1 and 2

then implement Sparticus number 1 to wrap up and report residual illegal components

If we can't secure our borders we aren't a country.

yes it's vile, yes it takes being 'mean' but that is afaik the only way to 'fix' this and

there are legal ways to immigrate.:scrutiny:

r

longeyes
April 2, 2006, 11:36 PM
You can end it if you all decide to:
1. Quit wanting cheap Walmart pricing.
2. Work for 3 to 6 dollars/hr.
3. Do hard labor such as digging a ditch, landscaping, washing dishes, car wash, factory labor, etc.
4. Willing to cut out all beni's.
6. Are willing to pay much more in everything you do and buy.

Stop making the consumer the be-all and end-all of the American economy; focus instead on producing. American consumption has become an addiction, and it is fueled by DEBT, which is day by day weakening this nation and undermining its future. You aren't fixing that problem by importing more unskilled, uneducated workers to keep the problem going, especially if you end up adding them and their dependents to the social welfare roles.

Illegal aliens the "backbone" of America? That will be news to Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Lee De Forest, William Shockley, Robert Noyce, and Steve Wozniak. It will be news to the American soldiers who fought and died in WW I and WW II.

No, not the backbone but close to the backbone, damn close. Just aim south a little.

mcg-doc
April 3, 2006, 12:18 AM
Illegals come here like flies to the honey. We should turn our attention to the employers who illegally hire these Mexicans. Take away their business licenses. Encourage competitors and public to report all the businesses that have such workers. Confiscate the illegally gained profits and give whistle-blowers a reword.

Jammer Six
April 3, 2006, 12:28 AM
Encourage competitors and public to report all the businesses that have such workers.
Brilliant...

How, exactly, will you know? I mean, since the people who have seen the papers don't? :rolleyes:

Shotgun12
April 3, 2006, 12:30 AM
.... We should turn our attention to the employers who illegally hire these Mexicans. Take away their business licenses. Encourage competitors and public to report all the businesses that have such workers. Confiscate the illegally gained profits and give whistle-blowers a reword.
Exactly - then bring 'em up on charges of, aiding and abetting criminals .... then treason. - though it'll never happen.

antarti
April 3, 2006, 12:51 AM
I know many people on this forum think secession is far-fetched. I don't. I think there will be many Americans, looking at what's on the horizon economically, who are going to start thinking about how they can detach their fortunes from this runaway train called The New America. How many of today's American citizens are going to agree with a massive tax increase to cover the amnesty brainstorm?

Been thinking about that for a few years now, it's probably just a matter of time before exchanging fiat for commodity-barter goes mainstream.

There's no need for a tax increase, every dollar of debt will get repaid with weaker dollars... "same as it ever was", the presses will just run faster. About time those that see the theft for what it is become "nouveau riche", and (sadly have to) buy some political clout like the oldster socialists. Otherwise, it'll be the same "speak no evil" routine from the pols until the collapse.

American consumption has become an addiction, and it is fueled by DEBT, which is day by day weakening this nation and undermining its future. You aren't fixing that problem by importing more unskilled, uneducated workers to keep the problem going, especially if you end up adding them and their dependents to the social welfare roles.

No, you just end up buying another day for the New Deal, which costs you more than the last one. 100 vampires may be able to live off a single host for a while, but none can live off the corpse it will become.

Honestly, with the massive financial pain being inflicted on those with fixed incomes (elderly mainly) I can't believe somebody hasn't mobilized the AARP to light a forest-fire under Congress with their heavyweight lobbying power (actual VOTES that can be counted on). Forget gunowners or NRA members, those bluehairs could get results if mobilized. I've written the Senators and Reps, now I'm thinking of writing AARP, and giving them a lesson in History and Economics under the guise/pen-name of my retired dad.

Shotgun12
April 3, 2006, 01:15 AM
You can "write" till your fingers fall off .... won't do a bit of good - sorry to say. These so-called 'reps', of ours, simply don't care .... period. There's nothing in it for 'em. They already have their own "safety nets", and their financial futures are 'secure' thanks to us "suckers" - the tax payers.

cz75bdneos22
April 3, 2006, 01:44 AM
Thank You, Madmag for opening my eyes...:what:

let me start w/ some definitions.
undocumented alien- a person not having the needed documents as for permission to work in a foreign country.
immigrant-a person admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.


now, i can't and won't formulate the obvious conclusions for the sake of those that can't/won't figure 'em out for themselves. :banghead:

As in medicine, We as a country need not treat the symptoms to the illness, but instead cure the illness.

my solution: work permits that document those workers that seek to fill needed jobs in the economic areas of service, food, construction, sanitation and agricultural industries. make such work permits renewable every 2-3 years
and after 5 years of meritorious service to the society, then proceed to apply for the naturalization process which is already in place and used by legal immigrants..set a precedent of loyalty, ethics and good standing and if you choose then get in line for a legal residence process. remember, undocumented workers come here for the economic incentive, not to live here permanently. the reason they are here permanently is because they don't have the necessary permits enabling them to travel freely back and forth between Mexico and the U.S. to do the jobs they already do...they work hard to earn the most money they can so that they may improve the lives of those left behind..once these workers are documented there would be little need to go through all the trouble of crossing the borders and such..just apply for an available American job as per established guidelines of the gov't and wait for your application to be called. think of it as a foreign U.S.employment office...go look at postings of available unskilled/semi-skilled American jobs, note the info and apply...then wait to be called for duty..all from the comfort of your own country...now, that would go a long way towards eliminating the problems along the southern border states. it would alleviate other problems as schooling for children of undocumented aliens too. just because they are here stuck in the U.S. does not mean they stop living life. those males with families waiting back home get lovers and procreate kids too...oftentime from other undocumented females to boot. it's clear to me what the solution is... still, you would still have some folks that would through ignorance or stupidity come across the border..people are people after all...for them, that is what the Border Patrol is there for...and since they have been relieved of the border rush...they will be more than willing to do their job! hell, if i was a Mexican national making good money here in the states...i would not stay here..i would make my money and go home...health care, it's free basic care in Mexico, other advanced medical care is available through private sector. just ask Americans who cross the border for the inexpensive medical procedures. and since i'm making money...if i needed intensive care in the U.S. , that's what insurance is for..in case s!@# happens..last time i checked it's a couple tens $$ to buy coverage a month... And the kicker, none of this has anything to do with U.S. citizenship or it's benefits such as voting, welfare, etc.....is this too radical an idea or what? i could be wrong. just an idea...oh, and speaking of undocumented criminals...they should be caught and punished, then sent back to prison in their respective countries for their countries to deal with them...criminals are criminal everywhere regardless of their race, nationality, gender, etc, etc...:scrutiny:

MadMag
April 3, 2006, 02:25 AM
1. Quit wanting cheap Walmart pricing.
2. Work for 3 to 6 dollars/hr.
3. Do hard labor such as digging a ditch, landscaping, washing dishes, car wash, factory labor, etc.
4. Willing to cut out all beni's.
6. Are willing to pay much more in everything you do and buy.

Answers:
1. I don't shop at Wal-Mart.
2. I have worked for as little as $.50 an hour.
3. Done all that hard labor listed and more. Most of my ditch digging was in the Army.
4. I guess I am too old....don't even know what that means.
5. What happened to 5?
6. I am willing to pay the less amount resulting from eliminating free social service programs for aliens.

Art Eatman
April 3, 2006, 02:31 AM
From Post #28:

"...where the past decade’s currency devaluation (in mexico.." Sorry, but the peso has been in the range between 10:1 and 11:1 for over that ten years.

There is also a reference to $35/hr labor costs in Colorado, absent the use of illegals. I'm sceptical that one cannot find U.S.-born workers at quite a bit less than $70K/yr...

I thus have problems with the allegaions of causal relationships in that article.

Art

southernwarrior187
April 3, 2006, 02:53 AM
Infrared/motion tracking sentry guns and claymores on the border.

http://www.gurpsmaster.de/sentry01.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m-18-dvic585.jpg

Course we would have to change "enemy" to "immigrant"


"Peace through superior firepower"

Can'thavenuthingood
April 3, 2006, 02:54 AM
My sis n law over in Reno working a roofing company has spent over $14,000 last year advertising for labor. Roofer starts out at $14.50 hr. and goes up to $20+ and $34 per hr. on prevailing wage jobs. This is residential roofing, just nailing down shingles.
They could find no one to answer the call. So they imported 30 Romanians on VISA's from Detroit, 15 they could actually hire.

It appears the Romanians are doing the jobs the Mexicans don't want to do.

Vick

Oleg Volk
April 3, 2006, 02:57 AM
There is also a reference to $35/hr labor costs in Colorado, absent the use of illegals. I'm sceptical that one cannot find U.S.-born workers at quite a bit less than $70K/yr...

He includes payroll taxes and required benefits into that number...base salary is likely $35K.

southernwarrior187
April 3, 2006, 03:07 AM
Makes me wonder why I was never taught this in school

How we dealt with this problem BEFORE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html

Shotgun12
April 3, 2006, 03:14 AM
.... You can end it if you all decide to:
[COLOR="Navy"]

Really? .... you mean if we stop shoppin' at Walley-World, we can stop illegal immigration?

You were doin' fine, up until you began to just quote someone else's thoughts and ideas - "The AP"?

Personal argument removed by Art

gunsmith
April 3, 2006, 05:32 AM
make sure that the ssn matches the name by calling in, but thats about it.
I've heard you can buy quality fake ID in LA. how is an average guy supposed to know? but if you call social security and the number don't match then you call the cops or La Migra or ICE or whoeverer takes the illegals away.

The situation is so FUBAR that I think we are not to far away from angry people taking the law into their own hands.

I want to scream every time the suits on fox and cnn say "they do the work americans don't want" it's bovine excrement.

the minuteman group border patrol project is doing the job our gov't doesn't want to do because international agri biz wants cheap labor and our gov't wants their donations

Spiphel Rike
April 3, 2006, 07:31 AM
So finding 2 low end US workers somehow means that americans don't want to work jammer?

For your illegal alien problem, I'd suggest large privately run detention centres akin to woomera and the like, however with more staff and equipment of course.

xring44
April 3, 2006, 08:45 AM
Summed up, GREED is the problem.

Can'thavenuthingood
April 3, 2006, 08:53 AM
check your PM

Vick

Satch
April 3, 2006, 09:00 AM
Just enforce the laws now on the books! What we are seeing in Washington is a shameful display of pandering to the newest and biggest minority in our history.And the politicions in both parties see "votes",if not from the illegals but from their relatives in the US. Legal Americans including Hispanics who went the legal way to become citizens have to be upset at our Reps. in Washington who are now campaigning for reelection and using illegals for their podiums.:barf:

Biker
April 3, 2006, 10:12 AM
So Cal is lost. Hate to say it, but any American living there is behind enemy lines. However, the invasion *could* be halted there if enough Americans get off their butts and fire the treasonous pols who are assisting these invaders.
See the sites in my sig and bug the hell out of your state pols.
It's a puncher's chance we have folks, lets start swingin'.
Biker

MadMag
April 3, 2006, 10:41 AM
The question that never gets answered:

Why should illegal workers in this country be allowed not to pay taxes to support the social services and benefits that all Americans receive??

I have never heard a reasonably response to this question. I have paid taxes since I was 18, so why not everyone else?

All countries, including Mexico, ask its citizens to pay taxes to support their services. In fact, I lived in El Paso and worked in Juarez. I paid Mexican and USA taxes. In addition to my passport I had to have a special Mexican work visa.

RealGun
April 3, 2006, 11:33 AM
All money wired out of the US to Mexico goes to Banco de Mexico. There is only one bank in Mexico. The Mexican government has a special department to regulate money sent into the country. My understanding is that the amount is estimated at 16 billion per year. One can wire money out the country at any 7-11. However, if done at a bank, one must be an account holder. I believe the Mexican government taxes this money before allowing its disbursement. They certainly know where it came from and where it went. So money earned here is taxed in Mexico but not necessarily here. It seems to me that one should only be able to wire money if they have shown themselves to be a citizen or legal alien. What I am getting at is to remove a major incentive for being in the US unless intending to spend the money here and sure to pay taxes here.

The other thing I would change is to require all wages to be paid by check, so that the expense is auditable, and so that the check cannot be cashed without being an account holder or presenting ID documentation to a check cashing service. Opening an account requires one to be a citizen or a legal alien.

We need to make it hard to be illegal, but of course that means that there will be a price for everyone to pay, not just people who look like furiners.

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 01:40 PM
All money wired out of the US to Mexico goes to Banco de Mexico. There is only one bank in Mexico. The Mexican government has a special department to regulate money sent into the country. My understanding is that the amount is estimated at 16 billion per year. One can wire money out the country at any 7-11. However, if done at a bank, one must be an account holder. I believe the Mexican government taxes this money before allowing its disbursement. They certainly know where it came from and where it went. So money earned here is taxed in Mexico but not necessarily here. It seems to me that one should only be able to wire money if they have shown themselves to be a citizen or legal alien. What I am getting at is to remove a major incentive for being in the US unless intending to spend the money here and sure to pay taxes here.

The other thing I would change is to require all wages to be paid by check, so that the expense is auditable, and so that the check cannot be cashed without being an account holder or presenting ID documentation to a check cashing service. Opening an account requires one to be a citizen or a legal alien.

Good ideas, but you know who will oppose them.

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 01:44 PM
My sis n law over in Reno working a roofing company has spent over $14,000 last year advertising for labor. Roofer starts out at $14.50 hr. and goes up to $20+ and $34 per hr. on prevailing wage jobs. This is residential roofing, just nailing down shingles.
They could find no one to answer the call. So they imported 30 Romanians on VISA's from Detroit, 15 they could actually hire.

Cut back welfare and take the money out of drug-dealing and that situation will change.

Blue Jays
April 3, 2006, 02:45 PM
Hi All-

My suggestion is to simply erect two high and sturdy chainlink fences a half-mile apart completely within United States territory. The area between those fences would contain a minefield that would be impossible to cross. Lighted signs and loudspeakers would advise people in multiple languages around the clock:

"...Danger! Danger! You are approaching the United States of America using an unapproved point of entry. This area contains defensive landmines that will result in death beyond this fence. Visitors and citizens of the United States of America will be welcomed at approved points of entry. Move away from this area immediately and enter the United States at the following..."This would greatly reduce the need for motion detectors, dogs, dangerous horseback patrols, and would vastly reduce the number of illegal immigrants to a mere trickle. The disgusting coyotes engaging in human trafficking would essentially be put out of business because nobody would be willing to assume the risk. It may sound harsh at first, but is absolutely humane because there wouldn't be people starving or thirsting to death in the middle of the desert and our intention to protect our border would be clear and unambiguous.

As for the naysayers who say it's ridiculous and violent...imagine you as an American tourist overseas encountered a fence and similar signs while hiking the border area between Austria and Germany. Would you be deeply offended or would you simply choose NOT to jump the fence and get yourself blown to bits? It is an easy decision to make.

~ Blue Jays ~

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 03:38 PM
Blue Jays,

There will be mourning sessions, guided by "compassionate" teachers, in every early-grade school in America the first time someone scales the fence and gets blown up.

Our own President will have tears in his eyes.

We have a cultural problem. We have made a God (false) of Compassion.

Biker
April 3, 2006, 03:47 PM
I'm all out of compassion. It's been replaced with pragmatism.
Contact your pols, folks. It's one of our last hopes.
Biker

Jammer Six
April 3, 2006, 03:58 PM
I think you guys are right.

I think the only way you turn back this tide is with tripwires, mines, booby traps, walls and patrols.

I think you should begin, immediately. Really. :cool:

Biker
April 3, 2006, 04:21 PM
www.rense.com/general70/ten.htm

We can make a change by going after the pols who support this invasion.
Let's make some noise. Phone, fax, write and email...

Biker

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 05:26 PM
think you guys are right.

I think the only way you turn back this tide is with tripwires, mines, booby traps, walls and patrols.

I think you should begin, immediately. Really.

Good stab at sarcasm, but I don't think anyone here sees this problem primarily resolved by force at the border, although that appears to be a necessary component of law enforcement there. No, it's illegal alien employers (hint) who should be the first target of a roll-back program, along with the prodigal excess of an out-of-control social welfare establishment.

<Accurate but personal comment removed by Art>

Blue Jays
April 3, 2006, 05:56 PM
.

mcg-doc
April 3, 2006, 06:36 PM
<Thread drift removed by Art>

Zedicus
April 3, 2006, 07:00 PM
Illegal Immigration-How to fix it?

American version of the great wall of China only with Landmines & Heavy Mg Nests:evil:

Art Eatman
April 3, 2006, 07:02 PM
I think what I'm gonna do is go back and edit and delete off-topic stuff and troll-stuff and see what the thread looks like after that.

:), Art

Art Eatman
April 3, 2006, 08:03 PM
Apologies to anybody I've offended. It's a one-time event. But this thread certainly wandered all over the back pasture.

I probably cut more than was needed, and maybe left some I shouldn't have. I didn't at all disagree with many of the posts that I cut. But way OT is still way OT.

While I'm not sure about my own Post #30, I'll weasel by saying I was questioning specific points in a reference, and speaking to the validity of the conclusions. Disagreements of the "You're wrong!" sort aren't helpful; I think we should show disagreement by giving valid and fact-based reasons.

It seems to me that anecdotal examples of facets of the problem should also include some idea of a solution.

Where there was some personal argument on the verge of developing, I gotta thank folks for restraint...

Suppertime.

Art

Biker
April 3, 2006, 08:10 PM
The fact that a poster or two was pretty much ignored is remarkable considering the past history of these encounters.
Biker

mordechaianiliewicz
April 3, 2006, 08:14 PM
There is no fix. Republicans want it b/c it serves their business interests, and are willing to sale out the country. Only a handfull of them are willing to be serious on the border.

As for the Dems who supposedly "love the American worker" they don't care, because 10 million potential new votes make them wet in the panties alot more than protecting American labor.

We're screwed. The media isn't serious about this past wanting to not talk about gun owners and religious right "fanatics." They're focusing on this to ignore those issues from the last election which still remain in this one.

If you have a RINO? Republican (what exactly does that stand for), how do you protest? Vote for the Democrat?

Please. There has to be a serious shake up in Republican ranks. Or, the Libertarians have to change their status on illegal immigration, and then get serious (never happen).

I'm betting the Republicans will have the necessary shake up, but not before Hillary wades into office and screws the country in ways Bush wasn't capable of even thinking up.

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 08:30 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-bush2apr02,1,7956670,full.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Immigrant Issues Are Personal for Bush
Associates say he has long had a comfort level with Mexicans and their culture. In a 2004 campaign video, he waved a Mexican flag.
By Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writer

April 2, 2006

MIDLAND, Texas — Cecilia Ochoa Levine was a Mexican trying to make it in America. But when she hit upon a promising business opportunity, to make knapsacks south of the border to sell in the United States, she could not get the trade permits she needed.

And so Levine asked for help from a longtime friend in Texas, where she had been a legal resident for many years.

The friend was George W. Bush.

Within a week, Levine was on a plane to Washington for a meeting with trade officials. And soon after, she had the papers to expand her business, creating dozens of jobs at plants in El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

Not everyone would have been willing to use his influence to help a Mexican citizen start a company, particularly one creating jobs in Mexico as well as in the U.S. But Bush's actions of 21 years ago help explain why today, as president, he is striking an unusually nuanced tone on the emotional question of immigration policy — a stance that has placed him at odds with the conservative Republicans who have long formed the base of his political support.

"Here was this single mother, Mexican, no money, starting a tiny little business," recalled Levine. She phoned Bush because his father was then vice president and "he was willing to use his connections in Washington to help me out. He understood it would mean jobs for poor people."

Long before the immigration fight that is rattling the nation, Bush developed a picture of immigration from his life in Midland, where he knew Levine and other Mexican immigrants personally and came to see both sides of the border as part of the same universe.

A three-hour drive from Mexico, Midland did not have the feel of such border cities as El Paso, but it saw a wave of Mexican immigration long before many other communities across the South and the West. It is where Bush spent many of his childhood years and where he later returned to start an oil exploration business.

What Bush learned in Midland shaped his ability to appeal to Latino voters and foreshadowed what could be one of his most important legacies: helping the Republican Party compete for the nation's fast-growing political constituency.

And it is having an impact now as Congress debates an overhaul of immigration law.

Conservatives are calling for tough enforcement measures to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and to penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants. Some are even calling for a massive fence to separate the two countries.

But Bush has carved out a more moderate approach. He sides with conservatives by calling for strict border enforcement and opposing what they call amnesty for millions of undocumented immigrants. Still, he supports a guest-worker program that would match foreigners with U.S. businesses and, as he said Friday, "bring people out of the shadows of American society so they don't have to fear the life they live."

Longtime residents of Midland say that Bush returned to the city of his childhood as the oil boom of the 1970s had begun to ebb, salaries were dropping and the workforce in the oil fields was shifting from white to Latino. Mexican immigrants were increasingly filling hard-labor jobs as drill operators and roughnecks.

Today, the city is more than 40% Latino.

"I don't think a lot of people understand what Midland was going through back then," said Jose Cuevas, who as a Midland newcomer in 1979 opened JumBurrito, a now-thriving chain of Mexican fast-food restaurants.

"In that kind of environment, everyone's young, everyone's excited. And if you've got your own oil company, when you go out where they're drilling, the population was beginning to be Hispanic. You'd see they were hard-working, they'd be out there with their Mexican lunches made at home, and you'd be shoulder to shoulder with them learning how family oriented they are."

There is no indication that Bush knowingly employed illegal immigrants at his oil company. Several people who worked directly with him said that he was consumed with hiring geologists and geophysicists to help find oil, and that rig workers were generally hired by subcontractors.

But friends and associates took early note of what they said was Bush's unusual comfort level with Mexican culture. He and Laura, hankering for good Mexican food, stopped by regularly at Cecilia Ochoa Levine's house for homemade flour tortillas, steak fajitas and other specialties. Levine's husband at the time was a business partner of Bush's.

"I made my own tortillas. I made him ceviche," said Levine, who had come to the U.S. as a student in the 1960s and eventually married an American. "He would ride his bike over. He felt very comfortable in my home."

After Levine divorced her husband and moved to El Paso, she kept in touch with the Bushes. And when a potential business partner offered to include her in a plan to produce knapsacks, using workers on both sides of the border, she asked Bush for help.

Levine's ex-husband, Larry Wollschlager, placed the first business call to Bush, who had recently moved to Washington to begin working on his father's presidential campaign. "He said, 'I can only introduce you to the appropriate parties. I can't pull strings,' " Wollschlager recalled.

Levine spoke further with Bush, and, within a week, secured her meeting at the Commerce Department.

"I was not a political person," she said. "I had no money to contribute to his father's campaign or anything. It all came from his understanding of what the border is, and I think he understands the border." Today, Levine's business is thriving and she is a U.S. citizen.



After Bush's father won the 1988 campaign for president, Bush moved to Dallas and assembled a group that bought the Texas Rangers baseball team.

He spoke often with some of the team's Latino players, such as Cuban-born Rafael Palmeiro. But perhaps more important, he hired as his personal assistant and driver Israel Hernandez, a University of Texas graduate raised in a border town.

For more than a year, Bush and Hernandez drove across the state, ostensibly promoting the Rangers but at the same time planting the early seeds of Bush's 1994 candidacy for governor.

"We would be in the car and he would practice his Spanish," said Hernandez, who continued working for Bush and later at the White House, under political strategist Karl Rove, guiding Latino outreach.

As he began to campaign formally, Bush made it a point to appear in the border towns and neighborhoods that had voted overwhelmingly for President Clinton, and which were expected to prove crucial in reelecting Gov. Ann Richards. He warmed his audiences with emotional speeches describing Latinos' ability to overcome obstacles and their ambitions to pursue the American dream.

Some fellow conservatives were surprised to hear of his seemingly liberal views when it came to the border. Ernest Angelo, a petroleum engineer and mayor of Midland during the 1970s boom, brought up the issue when he encountered Bush at a political event, telling the future governor that he was concerned about the open border. Angelo suggested ending bilingual education in the U.S. to force greater assimilation.

But Bush didn't agree. The two debated the issue for half an hour.

"He told me that was the wrong thing to do," Angelo recalled. "I saw right then that he had a very deep-seated feeling that the immigration situation was beneficial to the country."



After Bush was elected governor in 1994, it did not take long for his views on Hispanics and on immigration to mark him as different than many Republican colleagues.

In California, then-Gov. Pete Wilson championed Proposition 187 to deny public services to illegal immigrants. The initiative passed overwhelmingly amid rising public anger over the influx of Mexicans seeking jobs on farms and in other industries. The issue was credited with helping Wilson secure a resounding reelection, which put him in a prime spot to compete for the GOP presidential nomination.

But a scene that unfolded at a governors conference in Williamsburg, Va., left many political leaders stunned. Rather than applaud Wilson's support of Proposition 187 as a deft move, Bush told Wilson to his face — and in front of other governors — that it was a disaster.

"He really minced no words," recalled former Michigan Gov. John Engler, who witnessed the exchange. "He told Wilson, 'You're wrong,' and that it was … a catastrophic position. He was very clear. He felt that Wilson had made the issue one where it had become an anti-Hispanic issue rather than a solution to illegal immigration."

Bush's willingness as a rookie governor to confront Wilson "made a very powerful impression and an early impression on other governors," Engler said.

The exchange was not covered by the media, and aides do not recall the details — but Engler and Wilson remember it clearly. "I was disappointed," Wilson said in a recent interview.

The then-Texas governor's careful attention to the immigration issue did not stop with his election. As the 1996 presidential race began to unfold, Bush openly challenged Pat Buchanan, who was campaigning on an anti-immigration, anti-trade platform.

"No Cheap Shots at Mexico, Please," was the headline of an August 1995 New York Times op-ed written by Bush. He cautioned that campaign "discussion on immigration and Mexico can turn ugly and destructive very quickly."

"I don't want anybody, any race, to be used as a political issue," Bush said at a news conference, timed to answer a Buchanan appearance in Texas.

By 1998, Bush proved that a Republican could put the Latino vote in play, winning about 50% of that constituency in Texas as he was reelected governor by a landslide. Among his supporters was Adela Gonzalez, who with about a dozen friends formed the group Amigas de Bush. A housekeeper in El Paso, Gonzalez said she became a U.S. citizen about 10 years ago.

As governor, Bush rarely faced substantive policy questions related to immigration. But one issue showed that, despite his personal ties to Latinos and immigrants, he also viewed immigration through the lens of politics.

Over the objections of some conservatives, the Texas Legislature restored healthcare benefits to thousands of children of noncitizens who were to be cut off after changes to federal welfare law.

The measure reached Bush's desk as he was planning his 2000 campaign for president and facing a competitive primary. Bush viewed the legislation with caution, hedging until the last minute on whether he would sign.

Texas state Rep. Garnet Coleman, the Houston Democrat who sponsored the provision, recalled a 1999 conversation in which Bush's lobbyist acknowledged the political pressure Bush was feeling from Buchanan, who was running again for president and focusing on security at the border.

"He said, 'We can't let Pat Buchanan outdo us on the right,' " Coleman said. "They were very afraid of Buchanan. They didn't want to have a record that was too to the middle, because it would hurt them in the primaries.

"I thought … 'Do we have to screw up Texas for that?' " Coleman said.

In the end, Bush signed the legislation.

Coleman credits Bush for taking on Wilson on Proposition 187, but says Bush's stance today seems more about keeping low-wage labor available to industry. "I think he's doing it out of interest in keeping cost of production low for his friends," he said. "It's pure economics."



Bush went on to make personalized outreach to Latinos a trademark of both of his presidential campaigns. And it paid dividends with voters who had long leaned Democratic.

Bush won 40% of Latinos in 2004 — compared with the 21% GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole won in 1996, after the passage of Proposition 187.

During the 2000 election, Bush previewed a campaign video from ad-maker Lionel Sosa that used emotion-laden themes to woo Latinos.

As he watched, Sosa recalled, Bush's face lighted up. "How much do you need for this?" Bush asked as the two men sat with Rove in the governor's mansion in Texas, Sosa said.

Sosa replied that it would take $3 million. According to the ad-maker, Bush then turned to Rove, saying: "Give him five."

Four years later, Sosa produced a variation of that video for the 2004 campaign that was mailed to Latino voters across the country.

The video includes images that would probably rile those who today are calling for the most restrictive immigration laws. At one point, Bush is shown waving a Mexican flag. The footage was shot, Sosa said, during a Mexican Independence Day parade in San Antonio in 1998, when Bush was running for reelection as governor.

The five-minute video, narrated by Bush, opens with an image of him fishing on his property near Crawford, Texas, as he essentially described millions of Americans who populate his home state as the true foreigners in someone else's native land.

"About 15 years before the Civil War, much of the American West was northern Mexico," Bush says in the video. "The people who lived there weren't called Latinos or Hispanics. They were Mexican citizens, until all that land became part of the United States.

"After that, many of them were treated as foreigners in their own land," Bush adds.

He says the "Latino spirit" was fueled by "strong conservative values" of family, a strong work ethic, faith in God, patriotism and personal responsibility. "These values are my values," Bush says. "I live by them, and I lead by them."

As Bush speaks in the video, the background music — a Latin beat — grows louder. The president is pictured waving the Mexican flag, hugging a Latino woman, and then holding a Latino baby.

Political strategists in both parties said the video illustrated how Bush, unlike other Republicans, had forged a personal relationship with Latino voters largely on his ability to convey empathy and invite them into his party.

The appeal is most effective with those newer immigrants who maintained closer ties to home, a group that by 2004 made up nearly half of the Latino vote across the country. "These are people who want to belong here," said Joe Garcia, a strategist for the New Democrat Network, a centrist Democratic group. "The biggest compliment is to tell these folks, 'You're one of us.' "

That was the way Cecilia Ochoa Levine felt when she phoned Bush in 1985.

"He was concerned about how my family was doing," she said.

Now, Levine runs her company, MFI International Manufacturing, with her husband, employing hundreds of people in plants in El Paso and across the border in Juarez.

She said Bush understood the nature of border cities in Texas, where their Mexican counterparts are essentially pieces of the same community. Now, Levine said, she can drive from her home in El Paso to her plant in Juarez in half the time it takes her to get from home to the plant in El Paso.

"It's not like we're two communities. We're one region," she said. "People in other places don't realize that."

*

Times staff writer Tom Hamburger contributed to this report.

MadMag
April 3, 2006, 08:35 PM
To the point of the original question.

I am normally positive, but things look pretty bad. The only thing worse than the Republican plan is the Democratic plan. If there was ever a time for an independent candidate…. now is the time.

Bush says as part of the new plan that the border will be sealed. That will never happen. Just talk.

So, the only solution I see is a strong independent. I am prepared to vote independent even at the risk of losing to the Dem or Republicans.

Lupinus
April 3, 2006, 08:41 PM
Core part of a post in my blog-

Step one is building of a "boarder zone". This has a few aspects. One involves sealing it off at all points other then approved ones. This is done via a combination of wall, fence, and patrol by US military, national guard or army this requires more in depth planning to the area and what is available. The wall and fence sets up physical barriers and the patrols provide eyes and ears. Now I am not talking current patrols by the great guys and gals at boarder patrol, I am talking a combination of actual patrolling and watch towers. Keeping a manned presence with eyes on all but the most remote least active areas of the boarder, and even those with irregularly scheduled random patrols. See in the past people were coming overseas and didn't have a choice but to go to an immigration center due to the ocean. Now that isn't the case so we need to create an "ocean" which forces them to go through proper channels. Now I am not a "seal them out we are full" guy, I am getting to that part.

Step to involves setting up a network of Ellis Island style immigration centers. In the past it took a few days to a few weeks to be processed at numbers higher then the current system handles. Currently the visa system means you are waiting a few months to a few years. Immigration centers fix this and other problems. Centers would be placed along the boarder in some of the major towns making it easy for immigrants to get to and once there the process would be simple. Centers would also be set up in larger cities such as NYC which sees larger numbers of immigrants coming from overseas. You start by checking in with your name and country of origin, from there you are housed at the center for the duration of the process which will include a criminal background check, physical check for illness, as well as basically just getting you processed with information on where you plan to set yourself up what you plan to do etc. Those who fail the background check are booted. Not people with parking tickets, but violent criminals from their old country or those even suspected in gang activity, we do not need more criminals we have enough home grown ones. If you fail the physical you are treated in the center especially if you have something like TB or some other contagious disease that is a public health risk. Once you have passed your checks and are processed you are issued a temporary immigrant ID number and card similar to a drivers license. This gives you an ID and the number that acts in place of a citizens social security number. The entire process should take anywhere from a few days if all is well to a week or two if there is a glitch such as a health risk from disease or a slow check. This costs a small fee which once you get a job will be deducted over the coarse of a year or so depending on the fee right along with their taxes. This keeps the cost of running the center down and the paying with their taxes gradually takes away the need for having money up front.

Next and final part of my plan is enforcement. Once the program and centers are up and running all illegal's already in the country as given a grace period to report to a center for processing. After that any illegal found in country will be considered to be here for less then desirable reasons and when found kicked out. No hearing, no appeals, no catch and release, do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars you get put on a bus taken across the boarder and kicked out. Those caught crossing the boarder at non-entry points get kicked out to and if caught again are sent to a work farm to pay the cost of shipping them back yet again. With the easy process of centers I detailed above if you can't do it legally then there is reason enough to believe you are up to no good. Now comes enforcement on those who have come here legally. Once here you have a certain amount of time to get yourself working. Once you get a job and place to stay you mail in a form with this information to the nearest immigration center and are then sent a permanent card with your new address on it. In order to keep track of immigrants in country if you move they will be required to get an updated card. New job wont require a new card since it isn't listed on your card and would hit the system automatically when they start a new job and give this number. Any immigrant who does not find a job in a set amount of time has an order of deportation issued and if found is arrested to be deported. This they can have an appeal for once collected to explain why they haven't found work. This keeps deadbeats and welfare hunters out, just like criminals we have enough home grown ones without letting more in. As a last part of this any employer employing illegal's, when he had no reasonable reason to not know such as presented a fake immigrant id, and this penalty is STIFF. Stiff enough to make it very counter productive and costly to risk it, unlike today.

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 08:50 PM
I am normally positive, but things look pretty bad. The only thing worse than the Republican plan is the Democratic plan. If there was ever a time for an independent candidate…. now is the time.

Bush says as part of the new plan that the border will be sealed. That will never happen. Just talk.

So, the only solution I see is a strong independent. I am prepared to vote independent even at the risk of losing to the Dem or Republicans.

The likelihood is that a bad bill is going to be passed. Prepare to be slapped across the face. We the People will have two years to offer a response: find new candidates to support, initiate a new party or parties or transform an existing one. I think by '08 everyone will be aware that America As We Knew It is at stake and that we can't fool around any more or just glide along waiting for the next hot consumer item to titillate us. I'm not even sure there will be an '08 Election--but people call me "apocalyptic." Maybe so, but history is full of apocalyptic, "low-probability" events. God likes surprises.

Waitone
April 3, 2006, 08:54 PM
Bush may have strong personal ties and proclivities toward Mexico and it is largely irrelevant. He is the chief executive of the Republic of the United States, not a plantation owner. He is not free to do as he wishes. He is free to do as a duly elected legislature permits him to do. Compassion as a reason for policy is dangerous. I simply refuse to believe he is as big an idiot as he is appearing to be. There simply has to be a quid quo pro he working. I suspect it has to do with oil but I have been wrong before in trying to explain his actions.

I hope his party is aware of how dangerous the current situation it to its future fortunes as the majority party. He personally was bitch-slapped of the Miers nomination. Congress received the same treatment and more over the Ports Fiasco. I think he is deluded if he thinks he or republicans will escape immigration reform without welts. Time will tell how deluded he and congress is.

RealGun
April 3, 2006, 09:09 PM
There simply has to be a quid quo pro he working. I suspect it has to do with oil but I have been wrong before in trying to explain his actions. - Waitone

Job one is maintaining optimism on Wall Street. Just about any policy decision traces to that ultimate concern. I am glad it is done that way and will vote accordingly. It's called conservative. Everyone's savings depend upon it.

FIRE COP
April 3, 2006, 09:54 PM
[I have read all the posts in this thread..the long windedness of some only reflects their passion of the subject. we are at war with mexico...no that's not right..-mexico is at war with us..V.Foxx and company are sapping us of our natural resources..our educational system...our health industry...our jobs...we spend billions defending iraqui/afghani people.. but not ourselves the mexicans will win this war without hardly firing a shot...
[/LIST][/B] The economic impact by employers has been discussed.but what about the Catholic church which has a very large hispanic community worldwide and condones the harboring of illegal criminals...they readily accept the donations from thier flock, no matter how ill paid they are..yes the church as business is riding on the back of the faithful..the more illegals ..the more donations to keep them from going to hell...and the money?.it pays for the sins of pedophile priests...JUST SOME THOUGHTS... Some of us do believe that an armed response at the border is the way,,it is national security...Make no mistake this is a War..

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 09:55 PM
I simply refuse to believe he is as big an idiot as he is appearing to be.

You know, sometimes life is exactly as it appears to be. Sometimes you really are just getting screwed over. Does it matter whether Bush flies the flag of Commerce or Compassion, whether he's born-again or bought-and-sold? He's done his damnedest to dismantle America in the five years he's had in office, out-Clintoning in just about everything. The Bush family seems to like the concept of the benignant plantation. I think Bush means exactly what he says, no more, no less.

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 09:58 PM
Job one is maintaining optimism on Wall Street.

Wall Street has no grounds for optimism. The market is way over-valued. Buffett's fleeing the U.S. dollar. We've been in a secular bear market since '00. The WSJ is a propaganda machine, nothing more.

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 10:01 PM
Some of us do believe that an armed response at the border is the way,,it is national security...Make no mistake this is a War..

The soccer moms run America. They have for a long time. We have the America they wanted. Too bad the nuclear family, suburbia, and the shopping-mad middle class are going to be ephemera.

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 10:05 PM
The quid pro quo is already known: cheap labor and cheap votes. Too bad it only benefits the Usual Suspects, huh? We keep staring the Screw-Job in the face and have trouble accepting it. We're like a bunch of abused wives shellshocked from our last beating.

If you're waiting for $20 oil from Pemex, I'd suggest calling in the Marines--if they'll listen. I think they obey the Few also.

Blue Jays
April 3, 2006, 11:30 PM
Hi All-

The more I was thinking about the dual safety fence with minefield arrangement I outlined in post# 46, the more I thought that this would be a fantastic and absolutely cost-effective deterrent to prevent illegal border crossings.

The simple fact-of-the-matter is that we could then have an older and wiser generation of Mexican residents talking sense into their children and grandchildren who might be contemplating this dangerous and illegal voyage. No normal parent wishes to predecease their children, so if a few foolhardy souls lost their lives...word would travel quickly to all corners of the country and healthy societal pressures would certainly build against even considering such a dangerous trip.

Even the most dauntless of badasses gives pause when his very mother is pleading for something...with the exception of Paulie Walnuts.

~ Blue Jays ~

longeyes
April 3, 2006, 11:44 PM
No, they'll just come in via the tunnel that goes from Bush's ranch in Crawford to the staging area for hard-working moms and dads in Old Mejico.

CAnnoneer
April 3, 2006, 11:57 PM
Job one is maintaining optimism on Wall Street. Just about any policy decision traces to that ultimate concern. I am glad it is done that way and will vote accordingly. It's called conservative. Everyone's savings depend upon it.

I am speechless.

Okay, I feel better now.

You cannot base a robust economy and a strong nation upon illusions. The economic health of this country should lie upon high productivity, fiscal responsibility, and advanced technologies, rather than how much a bunch of speculators rotate pieces of paper among themselves. To think otherwise is to invite another 1929, but on a far far worse scale.

If pragmatic real-world decisions are to be based on maintaining illusions, then we as a country deserve all the pain we set ourselves up to get. Looking at the mounting national debt, I must say the party will soon be over. Oh, you can keep all the papers you want; the question is how much you would be able to buy with them...

CAnnoneer
April 4, 2006, 12:11 AM
I think the only way you turn back this tide is with tripwires, mines, booby traps, walls and patrols.

What is your solution to the tide problem? What makes you immune to its ill effects? Gloat all you like - if what you want comes to pass, in twenty years you'll be weeping. :rolleyes:

Blue Jays
April 4, 2006, 12:12 AM
Hi longeyes-

That is the beauty of the plan...who wants to be digging tunnels near minefields that could blow a person to smithereens? We would witness a flurry of unfortunate fatalities among the illegal invaders testing our mettle, and then the human trafficking would slow to a virtual trickle.

~ Blue Jays ~

CAnnoneer
April 4, 2006, 12:27 AM
A mine field is untenable, economically, politically, and practically.

Say you need 1 mine per square meter.

1000 km x 100 meters x 1 mine per sq meter = 100,000,000 mines

Even if you mobilize 1,000 sappers and each plants 100 mines per day, you will need 3 years to complete!

Such a field can be trivially defeated by a bulldozer pushing a simple contraption.

Also, as longeyes pointed out, this country is disproportionately run by soccer moms that will weep a river for the poor darlings getting blown up.

What do the illegals care anyway? They already risk death in the desert or by a coyote crook. What is a chance in a minefield in addition?

What has to be done is stick the employers in prison here and catch and fine the illegals heavily. No jobs, no services, no socialist handouts mean illegals stay at home and make a bonfire under Don Vincente's rump.

Blue Jays
April 4, 2006, 01:26 AM
Hi CAnnoneer-

We're absolutely on the same page in terms of hitting the scumbag employers of illegal immigrants in the pocketbook and letting them cool their heels in prison for a couple months. We need to pinch both sides of the economic equation.

I'm convinced the minefield solution wouldn't require the 100 million mines as you specified. Depending on how the grid was planned, some could be toepoppers and others would be powerful enough to overturn the bulldozer you mentioned. Illegal immigrants would just need to realize their likelihood of surviving an attempted border crossing are extremely dim. Coyotes would go out of business virtually overnight after news spread of increased American fortitude. Maintenance costs would be extremely minimal.

The attention span of a typical Soccer Mom is that of a brief media soundbite. Once the Mexicans get the notion we're as serious as a heart attack with regard to this topic...they'll stop reducing themselves to red mist and the soundbites will no longer be an issue. Something absurd will happen on American Idol and those not living in Condition Yellow will return to their glassy-eyed gaze into the television. Just my $.02 on the situation.

~ Blue Jays ~

CAnnoneer
April 4, 2006, 01:41 AM
Mineclearing was solved more than 70 years ago. It is not that you cannot clear a field, it is that meanwhile somebody will shoot you full of holes. Unless the minefield is combined with inhuman sniper teams posted every 300 meters, defeating the field would be trivial.

P.S. Sorry for the crappy pic - that's all I could find quickly. Just look for D-day contraptions.

longeyes
April 4, 2006, 01:43 AM
Aren't minefields a bit passe'? Why not automated high-energy lasers that sweep a border zone and zap the "unwelcome?"

But, seriously, my point is that fantasizing about what kind of technology we're going to employ misses the grim political reality of the situation, and that is that there is no political support in D.C. for ANY kind of serious border deterrent or enforcement. The new buzzword is a "virtual wall," which means watching the illegals come over the border--you know, like counting sheep--without really doing anything about it.

It is precisely because the soccer moms just don't want any trouble that they'll keep cutting deals, appeasing, and incrementally retreating until one day they wake up and find that neither they nor soccer dad has a job and the glorious days of mall mania and mesmerism are kaput. The people who really want to do something to stop the flood aren't soccer mom types, they're not even soccer dad types. They will rise like the repressed nightmares of four decades of drunken sleep.

DRZinn
April 4, 2006, 01:48 AM
Lemme try this again:

STOP GIVING THEM STUFF.

Stop subsidizing their low wages and make our current welfare kings and queens do the work, and the problem is solved.

CAnnoneer
April 4, 2006, 01:55 AM
make our current welfare kings and queens do the work

They'll probably end up in jail before they do so.

1911 guy
April 4, 2006, 02:36 AM
A solution that many will find unpalpatable but effective: Build the fence. Motion sensors set periodically with Border Patrol and National Guard ready to respond to alarms. Arrest and return to Mexico. If they resist, plant a few and word will spread that it's best to cooperate.

The real problem is that our government, on both sides of the aisle, have sold out to the mantra of corporate profits and global community. Bull. Companies have made money for a long time by paying decent wages for good work. Suddenly that's no good? Companies are posting higher profits than ever on the lowest wages seen in recent memory. As for the global community line, if I wanted another cultural influence in my life, I'd vacation of move there.

TX35
April 4, 2006, 06:56 AM
I believe we should adopt their immigration laws!!! :cuss: :banghead:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=06-D_18

PCGS65
April 4, 2006, 07:03 AM
If you take that 180* it sounds like how it is here.:cuss: :barf: :mad: :fire: :banghead:

TX35
April 4, 2006, 07:24 AM
True, except they protect their border with the Mexican army!!!

db_tanker
April 4, 2006, 07:32 AM
What can you say?

most news reporting agencies won't speak of these things...

and without that particular "delivery vehicle" to broadcast it most sheeple just don't care...its not important enough to be on the news, then it must not be important...


D

jojosdad
April 4, 2006, 07:45 AM
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=06-D_18

The Mexican solution

(Washington, D.C.): The Congress has received lots of free advice lately from Mexican government officials and illegal aliens waving Mexico's flag in mass demonstrations coast-to-coast. Most of it takes the form of bitter complaints about our actual or prospective treatment of immigrants from that country who have gotten into this one illegally - or who aspire to do so.

If you think these critics are mad about U.S. immigration policy now, imagine how upset they would be if we adopted an approach far more radical than the bill they rail against which was adopted last year by the House of Representatives - namely, the way Mexico treats illegal aliens.

In fact, as a just-published paper by the Center for Security Policy's J. Michael Waller points out, under a constitution first adopted in 1917 and subsequently amended, Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called "racist" and "xenophobic."

Mexico's Glass House

For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:

* Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.

* Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."

* Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

* Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.

In accordance with Article 130, immigrants - even legal ones - may not become members of the clergy, either.

* Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."

* Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country." What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right!

* The Mexican constitution states that foreigners - not just illegal immigrants - may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

The Bottom Line

As the immigration debate in the Senate moves into a decisive phase this week, legislators who believe America's southern border must be secured, the Nation's existing immigration laws enforced and illegal aliens not rewarded with permanent residency and a direct path to citizenship are being sharply criticized and, in some cases, defamed as bigots and xenophobes. Yet, even their maximalist positions generally pale in comparison with the treatment authorized by the Mexican constitution.

So the next time such legislators - and the majority of Americans for whom they speak - are assaulted by Mexican officials, undocumented aliens waving Mexican flags in mass demonstrations here in the United States, clergy and self-described humanitarians, businessmen and other advocates of illegal immigration ask them this: Would they favor having the U.S. impose the same restrictions on immigrants - legal and illegal - that Mexico imposes on their counterparts there?

Nothing of the kind is in the cards, of course. Nor should it be. Legal immigration and the opportunity for foreign investors and other nationals legitimately to contribute to this country are not only one of its hallmarks; they are among the reasons for its greatness.

Still, we should not allow the hypocrisy of others' treatment of undocumented aliens in their countries to induce us to refrain from taking effective steps to prevent further illegal immigration: by building a fence along our southern border; by enforcing immigration laws in the workplace and elsewhere; and by discouraging more such violations - with potentially grave national security implications - by dealing effectively with those who have already broken those laws by coming here without permission.

gunsmith
April 4, 2006, 07:50 AM
This kind of thing has bothered me for years, when I lived in Ireland It was nearly impossible for me to work, yet we have tons of em here.
(plenty of work in Ireland too)

I want reciprocity, full reciprocity. If I can't work in your country you shouldn't work in mine!

What would happen to me if I was caught sneaking into Mexico?

feedthehogs
April 4, 2006, 08:38 AM
Well if you read correctly it also denies basic rights to Legal immigrants which if were true in this country would eliminate a lot of good people including probably many here.

Mexico is a God forsaken place to live.
Be careful about wishing to be like them.

Only way to stop it is to eliminate the jobs that bring them here along with free health care and education.

On the other hand can you blame a person who is born into a helpless situation trying to get out of it?
After all isn't that what America is all about? Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free?

The problem as I see it is our elected Government's failure to enforce current laws which to my understanding is against the oath they take when appointed to office.

We have failed as a people to control our own elected government, choosing rather to ignore the situation until it has become a crisis situation.

Its way past time to take back our government...........................

TX35
April 4, 2006, 09:36 AM
I feel very soon I'll be voting for my house bill (7.62x51, via my FAL)

RealGun
April 4, 2006, 11:06 AM
I suggest that some think in terms of percentage solutions rather than absolute. Killing people; men, women, and children; is not going to happen. Those thinking in terms of economic disincentives are on the right track in my opinion.

Pawcatch
April 4, 2006, 12:06 PM
FWIW,blacks in Mexico are often made to pull over and prove that they are Mexican citizens,not illegals from Panama.
No matter how bad illegal immigration gets here,I don't want us to cross that line again.

Art Eatman
April 4, 2006, 01:05 PM
I don't see any solution without a complete change within the Mexican socio-economic system. A move away from Socialism.

What are they actually exporting? Answer: Poverty. They create people faster than they create jobs for those people. The existing economy of Mexico is unable to subsidize the people of the lower strata of the economic pyramid such that "welfare money" there equals our minimum or low wages in the US.

And I really don't think they'll change. They're in love with that Revolucion that's been their national illusion since 1910...

Art

Manedwolf
April 4, 2006, 01:13 PM
What are they actually exporting? Answer: Poverty.


Yes. And Vincente Fox ALLOWS it. While they defend their lower border with military, he's all too happy to let his poor leak into the US so he doesn't have to deal with them.

It's about like if you loaded a truck with yard waste and leaves and drove around fast with the tailgate down, so it'd all 'accidentally' blow out and you'd not have to pay the dump to get rid of it.

And let's see. We're exporting high-paying skilled jobs that require degrees and decent-paying skilled manufacturing jobs, and we're importing poverty.
That can't end well.

hso
April 4, 2006, 01:28 PM
I think Kodiaz got it right on the first page.

Send the CEO or owner to jail for 2 years and the person who did the direct hiring. Fines paid by a faceless company won't have the same effect as the foreman and the CEO sharing a jail cell. The employement of undocumented workers would come to a near halt.

To make the functional trainsition implement a 'guest worker' program like many other countries have. This allows for inexpensive labor to come into the country and documents them so that all the required fees and taxes can be selected.

Use this as the centerpiece of organized letter writing campaigns, public meetings, email campaigns, etc. and you might get some traction. Try to get it passed on the local and state level so that communities and whole states get it in place quickly and more easily than on the national level.

CAnnoneer
April 4, 2006, 02:16 PM
Yes, a well-controlled guest-worker program on annual or semi-annual quotas with untamperable IDs AND severe fines AND deportation of illegals AND no anchor babies rule AND jail time for employer offenders are the answer.

Maybe after a long time on the guest-worker program, something can be done about citizenship.

If creating an underclass is irresistible to big money, at least minimize the damage by making it a temporary one.

Let's ask ourselves what the fundamental difference is between the US and Mexico. Why is it that Tijuana is an abject poverty cesspool just a few miles off blooming San Diego? Is it racial? No way - look at America. Is it natural-resource based? No way - they have everything they need, and more. So what is it? My answer - our determination to have meaningful laws and to enforce them. When lawlessness and corruption are rampant, we would turn into Mexico. That is why saying things like "legal/illegal does not matter" is so scary.

wingman
April 4, 2006, 02:57 PM
And let's see. We're exporting high-paying skilled jobs that require degrees and decent-paying skilled manufacturing jobs, and we're importing poverty.
That can't end well.
__________________


Correct, short term it constitutes money for the top help of our country, long term ,disaster. getting those in power off the money train is like kicking a crack habit.

Jammer Six
April 4, 2006, 03:52 PM
You don't bid against low bidders because as soon as he goes out of business, there will be two to replace him.

Locking drug dealers up does not cut off the flow of drugs, or even cut significantly into the availability of drugs.

Locking up business owners, many of whom will have followed the law, will result in new business owners replacing sleeping foreman with immigrants.

As soon as immigration becomes as easy as it should be, they will all be legal, and the whole problem will go away.

And THAT is the real solution. Fortunately, our leaders understand this.

After all, it's the "illegal" part you guys are ranting about, right? :D

We get stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border. :cool:

Clean97GTI
April 4, 2006, 03:54 PM
To the point of the original question.

I am normally positive, but things look pretty bad. The only thing worse than the Republican plan is the Democratic plan. If there was ever a time for an independent candidate…. now is the time.

Bush says as part of the new plan that the border will be sealed. That will never happen. Just talk.

So, the only solution I see is a strong independent. I am prepared to vote independent even at the risk of losing to the Dem or Republicans.

Well MadMag, I think you've really hit on why Americans still work within a two-party system. It has long been the illusion of choice designed to maintain the status quo. When the Republicans and Democrats are both pushing bad plans, who do you turn to?

For so long, people have been treating elections like horse races. They don't seem to realize that the lesser of two evils is still evil. I remember the debates here about why we should vote for Bush simply to avoid Kerry. Now, we are looking at a president who has clearly put the interests of business (some of which make him a lot of money) over the interests of his people. Many of us saw this coming, but were unable to sway people because they didn't want to bet on a losing horse. It didn't click with them that ANY vote cast is not wasted UNLESS you cast it against yourself. Americans have been shooting themselves in the foot for years because of this "lesser of two evils" nonsense.

Folks, the only way to implement reform is to actually bring in someone with new ideas. Voting for the same party year after year and expecting a different result is insane. Continuing to pump your vote into the Good Ol Boy network we call congress and the senate will ALWAYS get the same result. Don't you think its time to actually try to implement change?

So many of us have written letters, sent e-mails, sent faxes and begged for our representatives attention. What has it gotten you?
It would appear to me that we now have more laws that violate our liberty and privacy (PATRIOT act) we have a president who has no problem sending soldiers to war (to put it nicely) on questionable motives. We have representatives that had no trouble under-funding the INS and its Border Patrol while in the next breath, calling Ranch Rescue and the Minuteman project vigilante justice.

How's that two party system working for you now?


Mike - Registered Libertarian

blinkin357
April 4, 2006, 03:57 PM
As offensive as it is to even bring up, the Nazi Germans had an effective method that would not be allowed here. That is to shoot anyone who is between the walls at the border. That would certainly slow down the traffic. I'm not advocating this in the slightest but it worked in another time and place.

Seriously, what does the Border Patrol do with detainees that they pick up at the Mexican border. I see them loaded into small trucks but never see where they're going. It seems to me that they should be forced back over the border at the point of entry, not taken into the United States custody for free welfare benefits and legal recourse.

ArmedBear
April 4, 2006, 03:58 PM
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a418/a418_a_10.jpg

Clean97GTI
April 4, 2006, 04:03 PM
Jammer Six,


You provide quality where it counts and you'll find low bidders going away. Quality doesn't always mean high costs. A bit higher, maybe, but Americans grasp that quite well...hence the reason we see so many Japanese cars on our roads. Americans will pay for quality if you can demonstrate its value.

We aren't talking about locking up the drug dealers, we are talking about removing their market. Take away the profit and it goes away. I support legalization for this method.

Why would you lock up a law-abiding biz owner? You shut down the ones who break the law (close the market) and you are left with the honest ones. I've got no problem with a sleeping foreman being fired for negligence and replacing him with a legal immigrant who does a better job.

Immigration is already legal, there is just a huge market for those who would avoid those pesky legalities. Kill the profit and the market goes away.

You are right, we do get stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border...as long as we refers to Americans who are sick of losing jobs to illegals. Money talks and mi amigo, the gringos still have the money. Failing that, we still have the guns.

Clean97GTI
April 4, 2006, 04:04 PM
blinkin357, do you see any moral problem with shooting invaders?
:evil:

bowfin
April 4, 2006, 04:24 PM
/*If people are willing to pay another $20,000 for their $200,000 house, then fine,” said Chuck Saxton, a contractor who regularly hires immigrant workers for a fraction of what full-time U.S. workers would cost*/

Maybe that $20,000 should come out of his pocket and not his customers. Maybe drive the same customized pickup two years in a row and skip one of his vacations.

When the meatpacking industry broke the unions back 20 years ago and replaced them with labor costing half the money, did anyone see meat prices in the store take a big plunge? I didn't either. If costs go up because of higher priced labor, why don't they go down with lower priced labor?

R.H. Lee
April 4, 2006, 04:29 PM
*If people are willing to pay another $20,000 for their $200,000 house, then fine,” said Chuck Saxton, a contractor who regularly hires immigrant workers for a fraction of what full-time U.S. workers would cost*/

So he evades the payroll tax and worker's compensation laws with which his competitors must comply. In short, Chuck's just another criminal. Bet he slaps together some shoddy construction, too.

wingman
April 4, 2006, 04:33 PM
When the meatpacking industry broke the unions back 20 years ago and replaced them with labor costing half the money, did anyone see meat prices in the store take a big plunge? I didn't either. If costs go up because of higher priced labor, why don't they go down with lower priced labor?

I expect the same from the American auto industry once the smoke has cleared and they have lower cost labor will prices drop, my guess, no.:rolleyes:

Art Eatman
April 4, 2006, 04:36 PM
Hey, this thread is supposed to be about solutions, remember?

Art

Jammer Six
April 4, 2006, 04:37 PM
Why would you lock up a law-abiding biz owner?
I have no idea- I'm not advocating it.

My general impression is "impotent fear".

I've pointed out, many times, in several threads, that a business owner can scrupulously obey all laws, and end up with illegal immigrants on his or her payroll. I've demonstrated how easy it is, and how little it costs. So has NBC.

The fact that this "solution" would end up locking up employers who obeyed the law, and who are, by definition, innocent, doesn't seem to be a factor. It's one of (many) logical or practical errors in the "lock up the employer" solution.

So I guess I'm going to have to leave your question as an excercise for the reader. I have no idea what the answer to it is.

It is pretty amusing, though... :D

Clean97GTI
April 4, 2006, 04:41 PM
wingman,
The American auto industry (specifically GM) needs to hack labor costs just to remain afloat. This is one place where unions have run totally amock. I've got no problem with GM wanting to trim the UAW fat and I believe that they will actually get most of their old workers back once the dust settles. Hopefully GM will be able to enter bankruptcy and come out a leaner, more efficient machine with better labor agreements.

This, however doesn't mean our costs will fall...simply that American auto industry will once again, be profitable. I don't mind paying a little extra for an American product provided that it is of similar quality to something coming from Japan.

The Japanese auto plants in the US are a great model. They have resisted unionization to a large extent and still manage to produce good quality products AND maintain a happy workforce with good wages.

Clean97GTI
April 4, 2006, 04:45 PM
Jammer, nobody hires an illegal unless they are negligent in their processes.

Any decent HR department will catch on in a larger business
Any small business will have a more hands on approach and would catch such a thing.

I suppose an illegal could slip through the cracks every now and then. Mistakes get made and people are still human. Thankfully, we can allow for that, give the person a stern talking to and a slap on the wrist and be done with it.

We aren't talking about mistakes, we are talking about companies who knowingly turn a blind eye in the name of profit.

I don't think you are comprehending (my guess is willful ignorance) what people are advocating when they want to bust a black market. Illegal immigration is a crime and it is totally possible to get here legally. We've tried making it easier to come here legally and all we've seen from our hospitality is increased welfare spending and soaring crime rates. We have enough of our own poor, we don't need to import them.

Jammer Six
April 4, 2006, 05:04 PM
Jammer, nobody hires an illegal unless they are negligent in their processes.
A popular fallacy, but a fallacy, nonetheless. :cool:

garyk/nm
April 4, 2006, 05:14 PM
Well, Jammer, we weren't really discussing jailing employers who made a mistake, that was you who tried to lead the discussion off in that direction. What was being discussed, was jailing employers who knowingly and willfully hire illegals, like.....You! (if you are what you say you are, I have my doubts).

Tell me this, Mr champion of the poor illegal, do you pay your illegal workers the same scale as legitimate carpenters in the Seattle area?

bowfin
April 4, 2006, 05:24 PM
Right, solutions!

The INS "Operation Vanguard" worked so well to stop illegal aliens at the meatpacking plants that Congress stepped in and stopped it.

Basically, the INS checked lists of the employees with the information contained in INS, Social Security Administration (SSA), and other data bases. Those with discrepancies were asked to attend interviews to "clear it up".

Here is what the opponents of this effective program had to say about it:

"During the three-hour meeting focusing on Operation Vanguard the INS was charged with violating privacy, reducing livestock prices, creating an uncomfortable work atmosphere and increasing the number of people receiving state aid."


Here is a link on how it worked:

http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/wkplce_enfrcmnt/wkplcenfrc008.htm

Clean97GTI
April 4, 2006, 05:25 PM
by all means Jammer, post some proof.

I'd love to see how a company mistakenly hires someone who isn't allowed to work here.

bowfin
April 4, 2006, 05:35 PM
Here is another piece on "Operation Vanguard" with the link following:

"Nebraska's congressional delegation met with the INS in May and June 1999
to complain about the impact of Operation Vanguard on the state's meatpacking
industry. Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) said that Vanguard caused cattle and
hog prices to decline because slaughter-line speeds had to be slowed as
unauthorized workers quit.

Operation Vanguard reflects the new INS strategy of issuing do-not-hire
letters to employers rather than raiding work places. In November 1998, the
INS subpoenaed Social Security numbers and A-numbers of employed workers from
meatpackers and checked employee data against national databases. In March
1999, the INS announced that a review of 26,000 employee records at 40
meatpacking plants found 4,500 (17 percent) had discrepancies. These workers
were asked to clarify their status before the INS interviewed them in plant
visits.

Many of the workers quit before the INS arrived. The INS said that 2,149
of the 3,135 workers that it planned to interview in Nebraska plants quit
rather than be interviewed by the INS. As of June 1999, the INS interviewed
1,040 workers and arrested 34 unauthorized workers.

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=377_0_2_0

So if you ever hear anyone say that we can't do anything about it, ask them why "Operation Vanguard" was not given a chance, and why wouldn't it work.

longeyes
April 4, 2006, 05:57 PM
I'd strongly advise employers drunk on hiring illegal aliens to begin policing themselves, voluntarily. I'm going to predict that such employers are not going to be very popular in the months and years ahead, to put it mildly. The American worker gets the Master Plan now, and he/she is not very happy with fellow citizens who have no regard for community, morality, and law. He/she is going to identify "the enemy" as malfeasant employers and traitorous politicians.

Waitone
April 4, 2006, 06:05 PM
Here is a clear cut example of business actively seeking out illegal labor. I believe it was Newt Gingrich who said we needed amnesty. . . . .for business owners who hire illegal immigrants.


http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/07/Business/Tyson_asked_for_smugg.shtml

Tyson asked for smuggled workers, border agent says
©Associated Press
February 7, 2003

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. -- A Border Patrol agent testified Thursday that he posed as a smuggler and delivered illegal workers, including some by commercial flights, to Tyson Foods managers looking for cheap labor.

Prosecutors in the meat giant's federal conspiracy trial also played secretly recorded tapes that agent Benito Maldonado testified were his telephone conversations with then-Tyson managers.

Maldonado identified a voice on one such tape as Tyson's Monroe, N.C., plant manager, Robert Sanford, telling Maldonado he needed hundreds of workers.

"Hell, I put over 700 people to work," said the voice identified by the agent as Sanford. "I'm going to need to replace 300 or 400 people -- maybe 500. I'm going to need a lot."

Springfield, Ark.-based Tyson and three company officials are charged with conspiring to smuggle illegal immigrants to work on the production lines of the nation's largest poultry processor.

Tyson spokesman Gary Michelson said during a break that the tapes played for jurors "involve former Tyson employees who violated company hiring policies and were subsequently terminated."

While the government claims the smuggling was part of a conspiracy that reached to the top levels of Tyson, the company contends any hiring of illegal immigrants was done by a few plant managers and was not known to executives.

The three company officials named in the indictment -- Gerald Lankford, 63, of North Wilkesboro, N.C., Robert Hash, 49, of Greenwood, Ark., and Keith Snyder, 42, of Bella Vista, Ark. -- all maintain their innocence.

Maldonado, who said he was known to Tyson as Benjamin, described picking up eight illegal immigrants outside a warehouse near where they sneaked across Mexico's border into Del Rio, Texas, in January 1998.

On the tapes played in court, a speaker identified as Sanford said he had to check with his boss about paying for the eight workers. Maldonado said Tyson managers paid $100 for each worker and helped collect payments totaling $1,000 from the immigrants for their transportation and fake identification.

The agent testified that Charles Cook, a Tyson personnel manager at Glen Allen, Va., told him he had talked to his supervisors and wanted workers from Guatemala.

Maldonado said some Tyson plants started using an employee screening program in 1998 that made it more difficult for them to hire illegal workers using fake Social Security cards.

He said 136 illegal immigrants were taken to Tyson plants in six states. Another 18 illegals were intercepted before reaching Cumming, Ga.

Prosecutors contend the conspiracy began in 1994 after Tyson plant managers had trouble hiring cheap legal help for its poultry plants.

If convicted, Tyson could face millions in fines and the loss of government contracts. The jury also will decide the amount of any financial gain from using illegal workers.

Cuda
April 4, 2006, 07:20 PM
Quote:
Jammer, nobody hires an illegal unless they are negligent in their processes.

A popular fallacy, but a fallacy, nonetheless.

For $16.00 dollars a SS# and matching signature I can do a background check on you for the last ten years and determine your status real quick. I owned a business and believe me it can be done and any employer who chooses not to is willfully ignoring the laws of this country..

C

haole_boySS
April 4, 2006, 07:32 PM
I dont know if this has be said already cause I havn't read all 5 pages but....

A way to stop illegal immigration is to stop our govt from supporting them.
I remember hearing about it on the news a while ago but Montgomery County in MD and another county in Northern VA took city tax dollars to build shelters for illegal workers. This was their plan to stop the workers from standing in front of the local 7-11 or the like and harassing pedestrians. Now they have a place to get out of the weather so they can relax while they wait for under the table work to drive by and pick them up. :banghead:

I may be way off, but thats how I remember it.

jmho

Andy

RealGun
April 4, 2006, 08:38 PM
That's part of the problem with the American system. Because of rights, it is no ones business to know that they are illegal immigrants, what they are doing there, or whether their activities are legal, barring some drug bust or something. Who picks them up or why is no ones business. It is easy enough for the police to establish that they are not loitering per se, they have a reason to be there and it's temporary, but 7-11 should be allowed to ask them to congregate somewhere else. If really day workers, I reject the part about harassing pedestrians as someones embellishment of the facts. With half a brain, they are going to keep a low profile.

Yes, it is aggravating, but consider that those workers contribute to the city's sales tax revenue, probably enough to easily cover a small pole barn shelter. Any solution to the essential problem will come from a much higher level. Knowing all the circumstances, you might find that you do not have a better idea for that scenario, at least not one likely to be acceptable.

Again, you can't tell if they are people with rights, because there is no entitlement to ask them for their papers. So far, there is no Gestapo, and it wouldn't just be reserved for little brown people. You have to stop them at the border or make it economically difficult for them to stay here. Once there are too many for it to be practical to do much about it, you have to go to plan B and start legalizing them under certain conditions.

Jammer Six
April 4, 2006, 08:47 PM
For $16.00 dollars a SS# and matching signature I can do a background check on you for the last ten years and determine your status real quick. I owned a business and believe me it can be done and any employer who chooses not to is willfully ignoring the laws of this country.
What would that total out to if you had a hundred workers? Among businessmen, that's what's known as an "unfunded mandate". The solution is simple, and taught in business classes everywhere. (Hint: it doesn't involve a $16 per head fee, a $2 per head fee, or any other fee.)

Oh, wait, sorry. I missed the tense.

It all fits, now.

Cops have badges and shiny blue suits, and they don't pay for the privilage, they ARE paid. Refusing to pay to be a cop isn't negligence.

What was your business? Are you looking for a job? :cool:

Well, Jammer, we weren't really discussing jailing employers who made a mistake, that was you who tried to lead the discussion off in that direction.
Not leading it anywhere. I made my point, with everyone's help.

I'm aware that it is much more comforting to blame businessmen, the government, and any other available "them", so I knew that no one here was going to listen.

The point was simple, did you catch it?

MadMag
April 4, 2006, 08:49 PM
This debate has now been rendered moot. The Mexican illegals have just announced that they are going to strike on May 1st not go to work and shut this country down.

The internet will probably not work
Congress will not work (same as always)
All stores across the USA will be closed
All home construction in USA will be delayed by 1 hr (actual work loss time)
No gas available
There is a chance the Sun will not work…so just darkness

Or Not
I always have liked living on the edge so I think I will take a chance and just do normal things on May 1st.

MadMag
April 4, 2006, 09:00 PM
The Mexican Illegals have just announced that they will have a work strike on May 1st and “shutdown” (their words, not mine) this country.

So be prepared!

Stock-up on water, gas, food, batteries, etc.

If you are having a home built (like me) be prepared for a 1 hr. delay (adjusted 8hr work day) in construction.

The good news is:
Free medical services for illegals not paying taxes will remain open.

Lennyjoe
April 4, 2006, 09:02 PM
Illegals huh? Well I think the Border Patrol and Customs should attend the strike locations. Set up shop right there complete with Greyhound busses with a direct drive back to the port of entry!

748
April 4, 2006, 09:12 PM
:D
If you are having a home built (like me) be prepared for a 1 hr. delay (adjusted 8hr work day) in construction.
:D :what:

beerslurpy
April 4, 2006, 09:14 PM
If we knew where the illegals were going to strike, we could set an ambush for them and foil their villany.

TallPine
April 4, 2006, 09:27 PM
Good for them!

But I think it would be even more effective if they just all went home to Mexico :D

cz75bdneos22
April 4, 2006, 09:35 PM
great!, now that they will be out of the jobs, let the willing and waiting for an opening... unemployed American replacements step up and walk the walk...here we are to save the day!!!!!! I will be waiting for the lines to fill these job that illegals are taking away from Americans...it was so easy, thanks for the walkout!! job, jobs..plenty of jobs Americans...step up and fill in the shoes of much maligned undocumented workers....let me know how it turns out!!:scrutiny:

RealGun
April 4, 2006, 10:00 PM
Illegals huh? Well I think the Border Patrol and Customs should attend the strike locations. Set up shop right there complete with Greyhound busses with a direct drive back to the port of entry!

Actually I doubt if it is legal to ask them for proof of citizenship or immigration status. For all anyone is entitled to know, it is just an American right to free assembly. Where is a good JBT when you need one?:eek:

Cuda
April 4, 2006, 10:50 PM
What would that total out to if you had a hundred workers? Among businessmen, that's what's known as an "unfunded mandate". The solution is simple, and taught in business classes everywhere. (Hint: it doesn't involve a $16 per head fee, a $2 per head fee, or any other fee.)

Jammer, I don't where you work or have worked, but every job I've had in the last 20 years required a background check. I did it with my own business and considered it good business and a cost of doing business. I would think in todays world a small fee would be worth the cost versus the fines that could and most likely will happen.. I don't make a case for or against, only a warning to those who don't or won't check the validity,it may be at your checkbooks peril..

JMO


What was your business? Are you looking for a job?

A few years ago I ran a systems integration company specializing in the design and installation of what is now considered Grid computing..

And I must declline the offer, I'm semi retired. But thanks for the thought..

:) :)

C

Sindawe
April 4, 2006, 11:14 PM
Giving the illegals in state tuition rates to our Universities is NOT a fix. :fire: ALIPAC Supporters:

We have just discovered that the Guest Worker Amnesty bill in the US Senate also
contains in-state tuition for illegal aliens. This measure is massively opposed by
American citizens. We need each of you to take immediate action to warn the nation.
The backlash against in-state tuition for illegals in many states has shown what
this will do if it gets out.

1. Please read the press release and article below.
2. Forward the Release to any local and national media contacts you can locate.
3. Forward the release to all members of Congress and the US Senate.
4. Contact any and all local and national talk radio stations. Time is short! Get
this out on the air! Get this out on the air!
5. Post this release on websites and forums with links into the Release on our
homepage.
6. Forward this alert to all of your e-mail contacts and ask them to forward as well.
7. Get on the phones to members of Congress and the US Senate. Tell them "Kill
this bill! I am outraged you would consider Guest Worker Amnesty and my taxes paying
for college for illegal aliens!"

Please take these actions immediately and encourage others to do the same. Please
stay focused on getting this information out all week!
This information can derail the bill if the news gets out!

Release: Warning! US Senate Amnesty bill contains in-state tuition for illegals!
http://www.alipac.us/article-1135-thread-1-0.html

Article: WARNING! US Senate Amnesty Bill Contains In-State Tuition for illegal aliens!
http://www.alipac.us/article-1134-thread-1-0.html

"This bill will replace American children with illegal aliens in the limited seats
in college at taxpayer expense! That is why this legislation has failed in Florida,
North Carolina, Georgia, MA, and other states!" -- William Gheen, President of
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC.

Watch Lou Dobbs on CNN!


Not an ALIPAC Supporter Yet? We cannot fight without your financial support!
Contribute today via this link...
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=9


Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) appreciates you receiving our e-mail
alerts and your volunteer support.:fire: :fire: :fire:

A good solid fence would be a start to fixing the problem, along with a "Chip and release" program for illegals that are caught. Catch'em, chip'em, release'em on the other side of the border. If the chipped are caught again, they are graciously released from the burdens of this mortal coil.

MadMag
April 4, 2006, 11:16 PM
Quote: great!, now that they will be out of the jobs, let the willing and waiting for an opening... unemployed American replacements step up and walk the walk...here we are to save the day!!!!!!

The myth continues. Now you can see the panic setting in. Americans will work these jobs left by illegals. This really started because of employers that wanted to by-pass paying those pesky taxes. They did save some money in wages, but at the same time it cost the American people many times more in welfare costs for these workers that pay zero into the system.

Now I am happy to have them have a one day strike. In fact, I would like to see it extended long enough for Americans to realize that these illegals are not “The Backbone Of The Country” as they stated the other day. I am betting that they will not try to extend because they know the real truth will be exposed.

Now if I am wrong, and illegals really run this Country, I would like to know.

My wife and I have never attended a political rally before, but I think they are going to organize a counter rally here to protest the May (DAY) 1st strike…we will both attend.

CAnnoneer
April 5, 2006, 01:29 AM
As soon as immigration becomes as easy as it should be, they will all be legal, and the whole problem will go away.

Please explain how that works. If we open the gates, we can expect tens of millions of immigrants within a few years. Exactly what will happen to the areas they move in? How will they all find jobs? What will happen to those who find themselves semi-permanently unemployed? What happens to those they displace from menial jobs, such as students working part-time and blue-collar citizens? What will the unemployment rates be? What will happen to criminality rates? Who will pay for the extra jails, schools, hospitals, and social services?

If this is a thread about solutions, please offer something at least mildly resembling reality and pragmatism.

longeyes
April 5, 2006, 01:40 AM
Mexico needs to be quarantined until the disease that infects their culture is isolated and eradicated.

longeyes
April 5, 2006, 01:45 AM
The demonstrations a week ago were the brainchild of leftwing political organizations with an internationalist agenda, aided and abetted by chauvinistic Spanish-speaking media and the liberation theology arm of the American Catholic Church. It is no accident they are picking May Day for their next coming out. We will be wise to see what's going on for what it really is, and wiser to see where it's all heading. Do we want to willingly transform the U.S. into a socialist nation? Has ANYONE in the media addressed the social and political implications of what we're seeing and what's being hatched in D.C.? For those who think this is fanciful I suggest taking a good, hard look at political developments throughout the Americas.

Waitone
April 5, 2006, 08:08 AM
Latest news on the moneybags for the demonstrations is the Ford Foundation was lead and CFR was drag. I find CFR to be interesting because it was pretty much limited itself to egghead deliberation and left public action to other organizations. Time will tell. I am sure the bloggers are busy at work.

RealGun
April 5, 2006, 08:41 AM
If the chipped are caught again, they are graciously released from the burdens of this mortal coil. - Sindawe

Condoning killing people for illegally immigrating is not what I think of as the High Road or as American. I hope you're not serious. These are people, not rats.

How about if a person is caught twice, they are shipped off to a secured island somewhere? I guess that better be a large island;) .

CAnnoneer
April 5, 2006, 10:06 AM
Condoning killing people for illegally immigrating is not what I think of as the High Road or as American. I hope you're not serious. These are people, not rats.

+1

The fact is, getting into a shooting solution will have profound consequences on our own country and culture. As others pointed out, the last thing freedom-loving Americans would want is a trigger-happy fedgov.

The solution is to remove the incentives for illegals coming here through enforcement at the employer level while making it extremely easy to identify illegals by their lack of tamper-proof driver's licenses that citizens and permanent residents have. An SSN card is a joke now. Once every deported batch goes back to their village in Mejico and reports tough enforcement, fines, and lack of jobs, the "wave" would turn into a trickle. That will allow border partol to concentrate on what they should be worried about instead - jihadists with nukes.

ken grant
April 5, 2006, 10:20 AM
All of the above is a moot point,nothing will work until the borders are better controlled!:what:
Another point is,why would an American work at a min. payscale and have to pay taxes,ins., when they would be more ahead by collecting welfare,medicaid,food stamps and help with rent.:barf:

TX35
April 5, 2006, 10:37 AM
If the Illegals think they have political power by striking on the job for one day, let them. I say that all of the legal Americans walk out on strike for one day (including all hospital personnel), then we will see who really has the power. When the transit people walked out in NY, it shut them down. I'm willing to bet the politicians would pass this Bill faster than anything!!

Sindawe
April 5, 2006, 11:17 AM
Condoning killing people for illegally immigrating is not what I think of as the High Road or as American. I hope you're not serious. These are people, not rats.Rats and most other non-human animals instinctually understand the need to defend ones home from invaders. Go take a few pokes at a wasp nest if you need verification of that. Most people get it when it comes to talking about one's personal home. But for some reason when talking about the national home and invaders, the mind blanks out when it comes to making the hard choices. Make no mistake, an invasion it is, though it does not come with military organization and weapons. Usually.How about if a person is caught twice, they are shipped off to a secured island somewhere? I guess that better be a large islandOK, have you an island in mind? Hmmmm.....

Ya know, Antarctica was once lush and green. With the change in the climate that looks to be occurring and the melting of the ice caps, it can be again.

Antarctica, the New Aztlan!

longeyes
April 5, 2006, 11:28 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why the American Left is hell-bent on restricting native births by promoting abortion, posits a high-tech Euro-type society as the model, wants tight environmental strictures--but also loves the idea of massive illegal--ideally, in their minds, legal--immigration.

Contradictory? I think it is.

Illegal immigration, in the numbers we are talking about, is anathema to a modern, technological society. It is a regression to a low-tech, cheap labor, serf state. We don't need the Federal gov't establishing a new "mission" system to take care of the indigent in California.

Why would our Government, we should be asking ourselves, be pushing something like this?

Why should we, as American citizens, entertain the idea even for a minute?

We owe nothing to the rest of the world; what we owe we owe to ourselves. The rest of the world can benefit by our model, by our example, by our discoveries, by our trade.

Biker
April 5, 2006, 11:42 AM
Apparantly, the Senate is trying to sneak in subsidized in-state tutition at American universities with the Guest Worker Amnesty.
Amazing...
www.alipac.us/article1135.htm

Biker

longeyes
April 5, 2006, 11:51 AM
We had Voodoo Economics once before. Well, it's back, in a more advanced form. Call it Plantation Economics.

So much for the goal of building an advanced, modern, high-tech society. We're going to go the other way now, it seems. While Asian nations try to curb their populations and push high-tech to the max, we are seemingly trying to replicate their earlier model of "More Bodies."

People talk about the theocratizing of America, well, this is the form it is really taking. The "mission system" writ large.

I hope y'all like bananas.

longeyes
April 5, 2006, 11:57 AM
Apparantly, the Senate is trying to sneak in subsidized in-state tutition at American universities with the Guest Worker Amnesty.

And why would a "guest" need educational benefits at all?

We all know the real idea here: Anyone who walks across the border is a de facto citizen with every right that you and I have. And we all know why that is being promoted.

We really need a "stop the insanity" movement. Muy pronto!

Biker
April 5, 2006, 12:06 PM
Ariba, Longeyes. I still say we're too late. BOHICA.

Biker

longeyes
April 5, 2006, 12:11 PM
Ariba, Longeyes. I still say we're too late. BOHICA.


How do you say BOHICA in Espanol?

I don't believe that but I also don't believe there are any panaceas.

One can watch America dissolve before our eyes, in a generation, one can move to New Zealand or Ireland, or...or...

Biker
April 5, 2006, 12:14 PM
Oh, I'm in this for the long haul. The problem with this invasion is, nobody cares until it reaches their doorstep and by that time, *it's too late*.
The sooner the dance starts, the better for the US.
Every time an immigrant crosses the border, *They* get stronger.

Biker

longeyes
April 5, 2006, 12:28 PM
The issue has now reached mass public consciousness. IT'S NOT TOO LATE. Fine, there are 10, 20, 30 million illegals. There are three hundred million Americans. We are still in control of our destiny--IF we want to be.

I just heard Tom Tancredo say he'll run President in '08 if no one else steps forward on this issue.

Biker
April 5, 2006, 12:34 PM
I see that Tancredo is leading all other Repubs in polls. I'll dig up the link.
Biker

spartacus2002
April 5, 2006, 12:38 PM
hell, I'll take a day off work to go backfill a striking Mexican somewhere. I'll call the press and they can watch me digging a ditch with a smile.

Now THAT's a countermovement.

Waitone
April 5, 2006, 01:05 PM
I remind esteemed forum members that highly influential members of shadow governmental organizations have published documents such as North American Community (by CFR).

The same organization's publications have been cited by the White House in press releases pertaining to trilateral discussions our president has had with presidents of Canada and Mexico.

Said organization (CFR) is a sponsor of the recent wave of illegal immigration demonstrations.

And said organization published a North American integration date of 2010 (CFR).

I am personally unaware of any measure our president has taken to conflict with any provisions of the aforementioned document or other globalist oriented missives. Let me be precise in my accusations. Unrestrained immigration into the US is consistent with globalists intentions in the construction of a new world trading order.

I don't need conspiracy theories when I have AP stories and White House press releases.

longeyes
April 5, 2006, 01:08 PM
Yes, and overt effrontery--an in-your-face expropriation of the U.S. polity--is the most repellent aspect of the whole charade.

It's one thing to steal; another to steal you blind right in front of your eyes. And smile while doing it.

longeyes
April 5, 2006, 01:23 PM
No, I don't mean Jeb Bush balling his eyes out because talking about illegal immigration is "hurtful," I mean this:

"O" No! Dorismar Gets An "O" Visa!

By Rob Sanchez

[Recently by Rob Sanchez: Reflections On the Minuteman Project]

"O" visas are one of the few guest worker programs that have evaded public debate. Traditionally they have been used for a small number of aliens of "exceptional foreign talent".

Typically these visas are granted to aliens who have received internationally recognized awards, such as the Nobel Prize.

Unlike the H-1B visa, which employers use to import cheap labor for white-collar jobs, "O" visa recipients must truly be exceptional.

But, in an amazing development, an Argentine pin-up girl for Playboy Magazine, Dorismar (aka Dora Noemi Kerchen), has been approved for an "O" visa on the argument that her good looks qualify her. (Research the question on her official website.)

This means the "O" visa is on the verge of becoming another guest worker visa program.

The Dorismar controversy began when she was arrested at her Florida home on Jan. 5, 2006 for violating U.S. immigration laws.

Dorismar was getting ready to sign a contract to be a calendar-girl for a trucking company when she heard pounding at her front door. She found Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers handcuffing her husband.

Dorismar, who was also arrested, was deported along with her husband to Buenos Aires within 8 hours.

The arrests were made because both Dorismar and her husband were illegal aliens. Dorismar came to the U.S. on a visitor visa, but once here decided to overstay her visa.

Before her arrest, Dorismar’s illegal alien status had not stopped her from buying a house in Doral Florida, or from getting lucrative jobs in modeling, pornography, singing, and acting.

Dorismar was just another one of the millions of illegal aliens who live and work in the U.S.

Rumors in the Hispanic community had it that, in a classic war of the divas, a rival Latina model betrayed her. Supposedly, a sexpot from Cuba named Sissi (aka Isabel Fleitas) finked on Dorismar in order to get the contract for the trucker’s calendar.

Sissi, who also admits to entering the US as an illegal alien, categorically denies that she reported Dorismar. But that hasn’t ended the rampant gossip on Hispanic websites and blogs.

Dorismar wasn’t happy about being deported although she admitted entering the U.S. and overstaying her visa. In an attempt to re-enter the U.S. she hired an immigration attorney named Michael Feldenkrais (e-mail him).

People who have followed the story assumed that Dorismar was trying to get an H-1B visa. This would be a logical choice since there is a provision in H-1B for fashion models.

But Feldenkrais explained his strategy in a letter to the Immigration Lawyer’s Website. He revealed he was seeking an "O" visa for Dorismar.

Feldenkrais also appeared in a remarkable interview on MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson Show. He argued that his client possessed extraordinary abilities to "show what men like to see in magazines like Playboy", citing her curvaceous posterior. (Hey, I’m not kidding, he really said that!)

The major requirements for the "O" visa are defined by USCIS regulation Title 8 CFR 214.2(o).

It is true that one requirement is "an alien who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in motion picture and/or television productions."

But let's have a reality check here. Dorismar starred in Latinas Gone Crazy, which is about a bunch of drunken college girls.

Maybe Feldenkrais used the provision that requires "evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, [and] box office receipts."

Dorismar’s music recordings are very hot sellers in Hispanic communities as well as throughout Mexico and South America, and she sells a lot of tickets for her concerts.

Despite Dorismar’s popularity as a Latina diva, claiming that she has been recognized with distinction is a stretch. Great opera singers like Pavarotti would probably qualify for an "O" visa. But Dorismar is not Pavarotti.

Perhaps the best provision for Dorismar was the one that asks for "evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which the alien is engaged."

Dorismar may have qualified for this one because, as Feldenkrais confirmed in an email to me, she opened for another Latina singer named Paulina Rubio during John Kerry's 2004 Democratic National Convention.

On first impression it would seem that Dorismar made a poor decision to hire Feldenkrais. Her case for an "O" visa is very weak…isn’t it?

Apparently not. Feldenkrais has confirmed to me via email that he has recently won approval for his petition for Dorismar’s contention that she is an "alien of extraordinary ability".

Dorismar still faces other legal hurdles. She is an illegal alien who got caught and deported. There is a 10-year bar to admissibility following such deportations.

According to Feldenkrais he is in the process of appealing the 10-year rule for Dorismar. Feldenkrais may have a tough time getting a waiver. But based on his accomplishments so far, it wouldn’t be prudent to underestimate him.

Dorismar’s "O" visa is an insult to the great scientists, businessmen, and artists from around the world that qualify for an "O" visa.

It sets a very bad precedent that can only make our immigration system an even bigger farce than it already is—and turn the "O" visa will into a cheap labor program like H-1B.

Rob Sanchez (email him) is a Senior Writing Fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization and author of the "Job Destruction Newsletter" (sign up for it here) at www.ZaZona.com.

(from vdare.com)

Ira Aten
April 5, 2006, 01:37 PM
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (says in part) The Congress shall have power...


"...To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, supress insurrections, and repel invasions."

With eleven million illegal aliens illegally entering our country, anyone halfway reasonably capable of serving in Congress would have to agree, such an enormous number of illegals entering our country surely constitutes an invasion.

Considering that the Constitution also in the same Article and Section says, "Congress shall have the power ....

"To establish an uniform rule of naturalization...."

To me, it appears the Constitution mandates that certain rules were to be followed regarding immigration, and should an invasion occur the United States Congress has the power to call forth the militia.

I also noticed the Constitution does not specify an armed invasion, it only addresses the powers Congress has if our country is invaded.

I have noticed the majority of people who claim it is impossible to repel this continuing invasion appear to be either members of Congress, members of the lobby group for the illegal aliens, and a minority number of American citizens.
Indeed 80 percent seem to be in favor of halting illegal immigration.

In the recent years, many legal citizens of our country have stated a willingness to serve in the militia described by the Founders. They in fact assembled themselves for service, long before Congress responded to this problem in any manner whatsoever.

They even named the citizen conscripts which joined this militia, the "Minutemen", out of respect for our nations founding fathers.
To one not schooled in Constitutional law, it seems to me, (a simple layman) that Congress has the power to resolve this issue according to its Constitutional powers, but not the desire as evidenced by their lumbering response.

The Constitution appears to additionally provide in the First Amendment, the right of (We the People) the people to not only peacefully assemble but to peacefully assemble for the exact purpose of petitioning Congress itself to act in the interests "for the People", rather than for their own individual political careers or the benefit of foreign citizens choosing to illegally invade our country.

Today, from what I am watching occur in the United States Senate during discussions of "Guest Worker" issues, Congress seems more interested in protecting individuals who have chosen to enter our country illegally, as opposed to addressing the invasion.

My understanding of the word guest, is it describes someone who has either asked for entry into my house, and waits for permission to enter, or someone who responds to my direct invitation by me to enter my house or property.


So here is my question. Is it legal for American citizens to peacefully assemble and petition Congress for redress? I know it is constitutional, I just am wondering if it is legal. And by this, I mean collectively petitioning Congress for redress, not simply protesting for protest sake)

longeyes
April 5, 2006, 01:59 PM
Petition whom?

People who have already demonstrated they don't give a damn what you think?

Jammer Six
April 5, 2006, 03:58 PM
So here is my question. Is it legal for American citizens to peacefully assemble and petition Congress for redress? I know it is constitutional, I just am wondering if it is legal. And by this, I mean collectively petitioning Congress for redress, not simply protesting for protest sake)
Sure, it's legal.

Won't work, but it's legal. Let us know how that works out for you, and then come back and lecture us on wasting taxpayer's dollars on immigrants. :rolleyes:

Old Fuff
April 5, 2006, 05:01 PM
Those who don't live in the desert southwest seldom understand how the "border crossers" work. This article explains how the system really works, and what it sometimes costs an illegal to get in. Business after all, is... business. :(


Stricter Rules Good for Mexican Smugglers
By JULIE WATSON (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
April 05, 2006 1:54 PM EDT

DOLORES HIDALGO, Mexico - Barely 18, Jose belongs to Mexico's new generation of migrant smugglers - young, savvy and happy to see Uncle Sam further tighten border security. Why? It's good for business, he says.

Jose figures more migrants will seek his help if the U.S. Senate approves legislation to double the Border Patrol and put up a virtual wall of unmanned vehicles, cameras and sensors to monitor the 2,000-mile border with Mexico.

Border experts say the price for helping Mexicans move north has quadrupled from $300 to $1,200 since 1994, when the U.S. last tightened the rules. Cases are coming to light of smugglers making $1 million or more. And Jose reckons the earnings will rise yet higher if new obstacles go up.
"This is never going to end," he said. "The United States cannot work without Mexicans."

Jose is a lanky, baby-faced teen in a baseball cap who says he started smuggling people late last year and made $16,000 in his first three months. His mother worries, but needs the money - Jose was making $53 a week cutting lettuce. Talking to a reporter outside their humble, adobe house near this city in central Mexico, Jose and his mother asked to withhold their surname for fear of arrest.

"We're always going to look for a way to get in, and there's always a way," Jose said. "This is a business for everyone."

Not so, says John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who chairs the Senate's Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship subcommittee. The way to hurt smugglers' business is by "securing our borders and working cooperatively with other nations on enforcement," along with providing a temporary worker program, he said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press.

The Senate is debating a series of immigration bills. Some simply bolster border enforcement and crack down on employers. Others offer a temporary worker program and possible legalization of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The House version would impose criminal penalties and build 700 miles of border fence.

Victor Clark, a Mexican border expert in Tijuana who has studied smugglers' patterns for decades, agrees with Jose. "This is going to have the opposite effect of what the U.S. government wants, since the demand for migrant smugglers is going to go up," he said.

The smuggling business flourished after the U.S. Border Patrol cracked down on the busiest crossings into Texas and California in 1994.

Migrants were funneled into the remote Arizona desert, and domestic flights into Hermosillo, Sonora, the biggest Mexican city near the Arizona border, jumped from 20 a week in 1994 to nearly 500 today. The airport's baggage claim area is often nearly empty because migrants arrive with little more than a duffel bag for the rest of their journey.Many risk death walking for 30 hours in 100 degree temperatures through remote desert terrain. The smuggler leading them may well be linked to organized crime, though Jose says he isn't.

That too is a change from the days when it was considered something of a community service in Mexican villages and older, trusted men would show relatives and neighbors the safest routes.

Now a growing number of smugglers are like Jose - in it just for the money.
"The new generation of migrant smugglers are youths who see their clients as merchandise," Clark said. "Many of them abandon the migrants in the desert or give them drugs, or tell migrants they know the way when they don't, and they end up dying along with the migrants. Others have turned to violence to steal clients from other smugglers."

Smuggling people into the United States from around the world has become a $10 billion-a-year business rivaling drug profits, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials who started tracking smuggler profits three years ago.

A Texas-based smuggler who was sentenced to nine years in federal prison in December earned nearly $1 million driving about 6,000 illegal Latin American migrants to work in Chinese restaurants throughout the upper Midwest.

In January, ICE investigators arrested two Texas families who allegedly earned $1.6 million in two years by hiring a fleet of trucks near the border city of El Paso to transport migrants across the United States.

"One truck driver, all he did was transport aliens," said Dan Page, acting special agent in charge for ICE in El Paso.

In the central Mexican ranching town of San Diego, migrants board smugglers' trucks and vans nearly every Sunday to head for the border.

"The smugglers around here have the biggest houses," said resident Guillermo Melchor, who said he paid $1,300 to get to Houston through a trafficking network.

He made it but said his 23-year-old friend, crossing separately, died of a heart attack after taking a stimulant from a smuggler to endure the long desert walk.

Jose charges $1,200 per person, sharing his earnings with a driver who waits on a highway outside Laredo, Texas, to pick up the migrants, and another man who provides a Houston safe house for new arrivals.He said he made his first $16,000 smuggling 40 people in four journeys from the cactus-studded state of Guanajuato by bus to the border, then across the Rio Grande to meet the driver.

They usually wade across at night, then walk for two hours through the scrubby south Texas desert, with the lights of Laredo in view. Jose's rules are simple: Keep alert. No talking. No smoking. If you see a light flash or hear a noise, it could be the border patrol. If you see someone, run like crazy.
Jose says he treats his migrants well and even helps those he finds abandoned in the desert - for a price, of course.

After all, he said: "It's business."

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20060405/443340c0_3ca6_1552620060405-1874123361

Biker
April 5, 2006, 05:06 PM
Check out www.numbersusa.com.
They've signed up 18,000 new members in the last 3 weeks and they're all sending free faxes, making calls and emailing the House and Senate expressing their concern over this illegel infestation. Rumor is, it's doing some good. Hey, you oughta join up.
It seems to be doing some good.
Biker

Waitone
April 5, 2006, 05:11 PM
I'm hearing the response is every bit as strong as it was during the Ports Fiasco. It just doesn't match the media agenda so it never gets reported.

Phetro
April 5, 2006, 05:22 PM
1. Kill the welfare state. Only total and absolute dissolution of all socialist programs is acceptable.

2. Vigorously enforce existing immigration laws. Implement a five-year, 500% increase in INS agents assigned to Search and Deport missions.

3. Stop the leftists in the media from influencing the public to sympathize with illegal aliens. Expose their treachery to the people.

4. Create TAX BREAKS for citizens who report illegal aliens within the next five years.

You want to get rid of them fast? That's how right there.

jmf
April 6, 2006, 05:42 AM
Before this country became emasculated, before this country lost its virility. an invasion of this scope would have never been allowed. It is said repeatedly that it would be impossible to send all the illegal aliens back to Mexico. The last straw for me was the march of illegal aliens in Los Angeles waving the Mexican flag. This was followed by a Houston, Texal high school flying a Mexican flag.

There is a tried and true method of securing the border. Force of arms.

Along with securing the border by armed force. Build detention centers hold the illegal alien invaders while transportation back to Mexico is arranged. This will take a little time, but it is do-able.

Have a detention center solely for holding all the leftists who have been encouraging and actively assisting this invasion from Mexico.and charge these people with treason or sedition or both.

Do not vote for any incumbent in the next election. They have ignored us and devoted their energy to facilitating a takeover of our country by the illegal aliens.

There are moments in history and this is one of those moments to excercise our Second Ammendment Right.

That's all I have to say about this.

longeyes
April 6, 2006, 12:09 PM
For forty years Ted Kennedy, the arch-architect of so much of what is finally bearing fruit today, has been on a crusade to de-Protestantize and de-Europeanize America. Perhaps he has a Missionary Complex; perhaps it's something far more insidious. I would not scruple to call it racism. I would not scruple to call it psychopathology.

I am still waiting for him to be questioned about this.

The issue is not and never has been "race." The issue is cultural. Strip away the Protestant and European core of American and you lose the philosophical underpinnings of America's essential political legacy, gestated over centuries in Christian Europe and then fully born in the Enlightenment. No one wants to talk about such "touchy" subjects any more, in our illuminated epoch of Political Correctness; we'd better start if we want America to be more than a one-stop global shopping destination.

JoeSF
April 6, 2006, 01:03 PM
When will American workers get tired of having their wages sacrificed on the alter of deflation?

....When all protected government workers and elitist professionals who are protected from competition get their earnings cut!
How come I meet engineers and doctors from Eastern Europe driving cabs here because they cant practice their profession in America? Why do teachers still have the nerve to demand a raise or go on strike! BECAUSE THEY ARE IMMUNE TO WAGE COMPETITION FROM ABROAD!!!! Which is the one thing we love about illegals, they will work on the cheap saving participation in the costly workman’s compensation, unemployment, health, and retirement programs the American public voted for!


http://freshcleanday.com/converse.html

Meanwhile, John McCain thinks Americans won’t pick lettuce for 50 bucks an hour because we are spoiled. The story follows here is the link and an excerpt from Tammy Bruce:

http://tammybruce.com/archives/2006/04/john_mccain_thi.php

John McCain Thinks Americans Are French

In other words, we're a bunch of lazy, spoiled children. But the last time I checked, it wasn't a bunch of French cry-babies saving the world from freakish Islamist terrorists. Consider this outrageous comment from McCain at a speech today to the AFL-CIO (or what's left of it):

Labor leaders boo McCain on immigration, Iraq

[...]But he took more questions, including a pointed one on his immigration plan.

McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.

Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain’s job offer.

“I’ll take it!” one man shouted.

McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. “You can’t do it, my friends.”

Some in the crowd said they didn’t appreciate McCain questioning their work ethic.

Uh, yeah. Gee, I think this makes things very clear. John McCain, a United States senator, didn't just pull the example of $50 an hour for "picking lettuce" out of his keister. No, he thought about that. And he thought that even for a decent about of money (which amounts to $8,000 a month, $96,000 a year, btw) that Americans wouldn't either "lower" themselves to do that work, or find it simply "too hard."

That's a funny thing to say considering the fact that our low-paid enlisted troops, young men and women between the ages of 19-23, are doing something as unglamorous, more difficult, and certainly more dangerous than "lettuce picking."

6:51 PM

longeyes
April 6, 2006, 01:19 PM
Our beloved House of Lords--aka The Senate--has apparently hammered out a "compromise." It took an all-nighter and a realization that the Easter two-week recess lies just ahead. Tough men these.

The "compromise," should it become become law, will ensure the death of the GOP. You can forget about the GOP winning any major elections in the next 25 years. After that it won't matter, there won't be any more elections.

Now why would so many GOP Senators vote to end their own viability?

M-O-N-E-Y.

They don't need us, they don't the GOP, they don't care about us or the Party.

All bets are off, ladies and gentlemen.

Desertdog
April 6, 2006, 01:23 PM
I guess the word didn't get out as to what area they are patrolling.

Minutemen report nearly 600 illegal immigrant sightings so far
http://kvoa.com/global/story.asp?s=4735670&ClientType=Printable

Minuteman border watch volunteers deployed in Arizona this month have called in close to 600 sightings of illegal immigrants observed crossing through the desert southwest of Tucson.


Connie Hair, spokeswoman for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said that Minutemen had reported 591 sightings of suspected illegal immigrants to the U.S. Border Patrol from Saturday, when the monthlong operation south of Three Points began, through early afternoon Wednesday.

She said the calls resulted in 203 apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol.

When Minutemen staged their first such patrols last April along the border near Naco in southeastern Arizona, they claimed credit for sightings that resulted in apprehension of about 330 illegal immigrants for the entire month.

This year, Minuteman volunteers are set up on private ranch lands about 35 miles north of the Mexican border in a corridor that has become the busiest in the Border Patrol's Tucson sector for illegal immigrant trafficking.

Volunteers are to call or radio the Border Patrol with any sightings.

The Border Patrol initially indicated that it would track calls from Minutemen reporting sightings, but on Wednesday, spokesman Johnny Bernal said there was a decision not to do so.

Bernal said the agency receives numerous calls daily from citizens.

"We have hundreds of calls a day, so trying to decipher who's Minuteman, who isn't, would just be a difficult task," he said.

Hair said there have been 78 sightings by Minuteman volunteers in New Mexico resulting in 28 apprehensions; 200 sightings near Falfurrias, Texas, with no figure available on resulting apprehensions, and 38 sightings near San Diego in California, also with an undetermined number of apprehensions. No sightings have been reported in Washington state or New York state, she added.

JoeSF
April 6, 2006, 01:25 PM
Ever wonder why their aren't any marches in Mexico? While American communists and socialists busy themselves bashing the United States, the corrupt Mexican government gets a pass.



Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them

At this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.

By George W. Grayson

WILLIAMSBURG, VA. – At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato.
Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility."

Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty. To his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad.

Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and the workplace.

What are some examples of this failure of responsibility?

• When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system.

• Insufficient revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study.

• A venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP.

• Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption.

• Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots - that control telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation, construction, and cement. Politicians who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a snowfall in the Sonoran Desert.

Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.

• George W. Grayson, who teaches government at the College of William & Mary, is the author of "Mesías Mexicano," forthcoming, a book about Mexican presidential front-runner Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

5:27 PM

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11496801&postID=114340220285140991

longeyes
April 6, 2006, 01:26 PM
Brave men, but they're wasting their time. Illegal is legal. There is no border.

They are quixotic, tilting at windmills.

Learn Spanish; better, marry a Mexican.

Thefabulousfink
April 6, 2006, 01:29 PM
But Wait, I thought the Minutemen were a bunch of racist, gun-toting, redneck ya-hoos who are out to shoot anything that moves. This article doesn't mention just how many thousands of immigrants have been killed in hails of racist gunfire.:neener:

Blue Jays
April 6, 2006, 01:53 PM
Hi Thefabulousfink-

Have no fear, the MSM will get to the juicy part about the hail of racist gunfire in the sequel to this initial report!

~ Blue Jays ~

Cuda
April 6, 2006, 02:47 PM
The one thing that still escapes me on this compromise bill is how will law enforcment know who has been in country 0-2 years 2-5 years etc. The illegals are illegals and don't have any proof of anything??? This is a farce to appease the uninformed..

I just became an independent, sorry libertarians...


C

Waitone
April 6, 2006, 02:54 PM
I think what the senate did is pretty much par for the course. I would love to see the list of senators (33 or 34) who are up for election November and see what their position is on the grand compromise. Just off hand I would expect them to favor a house lookalike position.

Keep in mind the battle going on in DC is over votes ulitmately. The house think they will lose votes in November while the senate fears they will lose future votes of a new constitutency. . . .all except the 1/3 up for election in November. I can not simply dismiss the possibility that congress is playing good cop / bad cop to the voter. Problem is at the end of the day something substantive will have to be done. The days of pulling wool over the voters eyes are past. There are far too many channels of information available to fool the voter en mass.

It is nut crackin' time and congress knows it.

longeyes
April 6, 2006, 03:00 PM
Let's hope what results is nothing like this Senatorial "compromise." It smells of an "all-nighter," frankly, full of sound and fury and subterfuge and desperation. No program that lacks long, sharp enforcement teeth has any meaning. For me most of what I'm seeing smacks of "Apres moi le deluge!" throw-up-your-hands-and-run tactics. These politicos know that they are greenlighting a massive--and UNWELCOME--cultural transformation of the United States. They know what they are doing is inimical to the will of the vast majority of the American people. They know but they push ahead anyway. Either they figure the tide won't roll over them or they are insane. Either way we'd better watch our behinds.

ken grant
April 6, 2006, 03:11 PM
Control our Borders now!!!!!!!!!! Without this nothing will ever work.:what:
Contact Congress now and let them know this.
Our Reps. are selling out the average working person in the USA:cuss:

ken grant
April 6, 2006, 03:19 PM
Our RINO's have sold us out.
They have been in total control of our Government for about 5 yrs and have let us all down and seem to not care.:cuss:
Just as the Dem's left Zell Miller, the Repugs have left me.:fire:

longeyes
April 6, 2006, 03:25 PM
Control our borders? There's nothing in the Senate "compromise" bill about a wall, a fence, tighter borders, or increased funding for BP agents. A country without borders isn't a nation any more. We're going to have to face the reality that in just a few years we have had America ripped away from us. It's clear that Congres believes they can get away with just about anything.

"Before this country became emasculated, before this country lost its virility. an invasion of this scope would have never been allowed."

Tell that to the honchos at NBC who have zeroed in on the "NASCAR" sub-population as the real threat to American values. I think we all know what's afoot here.

CAnnoneer
April 6, 2006, 03:31 PM
It seems what is happening right now shows the extent of the disconnect. The house voted for 4437, because they represent specific small communities, rotate every two years and know there would be hell to pay.

Our 100 Peers of the Land by contrast care not because they know there would be enough dittoheads to reelect them, especially by the time the damage is done. They count on it. What do they care anyway? They consider themselves well-insulated from any trouble by their wealth, gated communities, private bodyguards, and a retinue of lawyers. What happens to the unwashed peasants is completely irrelevant. In that, they have revealed themselves to rival their Mexican counterparts. Notice the disappearing illusion of partisan differences. You can't tell one traitor from another with a score card.

I fear by the time your average Joe understands what is being done to the country, it may very well be too late. On the other hand, the minutemen and the explosion of membership at places like NumbersUSA does show that people are waking up. It remains to be seen if that would happen fast enough.

Jammer Six
April 6, 2006, 03:32 PM
Connie Hair, spokeswoman for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said that Minutemen had reported 591 sightings of suspected illegal immigrants to the U.S. Border Patrol from Saturday, when the monthlong operation south of Three Points began, through early afternoon Wednesday.

She said the calls resulted in 203 apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol
So, they're reporting three times as many as there are. :rolleyes:

longeyes
April 6, 2006, 03:35 PM
I think talk radio IS getting the word out (which is why talk radio is on the hit list in the time to come). Our job should be to let as many people as possible realize what's really going down, using the blunt language of reality. I think the consciousness is spreading; what's lacking is political organization and political representatives to counter what's happening.

Jammer Six
April 6, 2006, 04:44 PM
Talk radio, in Spanish, mobilized 600,000 in three days with no money and no organization.

In response, with every effort, every "organization", and every dollar available, the opposition has musterered something under 20,000, and none of them are going to assemble in more than about half that.

More than half a million, less than 20,000. Oh, I'm sorry, let's err on the side of conservatism. 40,000.

Okay, let's be sure. 60,000. Wouldn't want to underestimate anything...

Wait, let's give it another week. 70,000.

Times are changing, the future is coming.

You're right, talk radio is part of that future.

Spanish speaking talk radio.

We get stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border. :cool:

Jammer Six
April 6, 2006, 04:46 PM
Talk radio, in Spanish, mobilized 600,000 in three days with no money and no organization.

In response, with every effort, every "organization", and every dollar available, the opposition has musterered something under 20,000, and none of them are going to assemble in more than about half that.

More than half a million, less than 20,000. Oh, I'm sorry, let's err on the side of conservatism. 40,000.

Okay, let's be sure. 60,000. Wouldn't want to underestimate anything...

Wait, let's give it another week. 70,000.

Times are changing, the future is coming.

You're right, talk radio is part of that future.

Spanish speaking talk radio.

We get stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border. :cool:

Waitone
April 6, 2006, 05:10 PM
Point one, Spanish speaking radio may have publicized the rallies, but most assuredly did not organize the marches. A lot of money went into the preparation and coordination. Time will tell who and what is ultimately behind the "sudden" appearance of protests but I'll lay money on radical and / or globalists organizations. We'll have to wait for the bloggers to finish their work because main stream media won't ferret out those responsible.

Point two, policy is not generally influence in the US by street protests. Whoever is calling the shots is looking at US politics through European or Latin American eyes which may be a hint as to who is calling the US shots.

Public protesters may have hurt their position by going public.

Clean97GTI
April 6, 2006, 05:10 PM
Jammer Six,
You still haven't posted anything resembling proof or evidence that I asked you for.

Your argument smells like excrement which should give us some clue as to its source.

Clean97GTI
April 6, 2006, 05:13 PM
Perhaps someone can answer a legal question for me.

I know the US Army isn't really allowed to deploy or operate on US soil except in times of dire emergency. What about the National Guard of various states?
Could the governor of a state deploy the National Guard (assuming they aren't tied up in Iraq :fire: ) to guard and secure the border?

Violence or threat of it has always been an excellent tool when you have something you want to enforce.

Dmack_901
April 6, 2006, 05:28 PM
fix Mexico.

Biker
April 6, 2006, 05:46 PM
According to the Arizona Republic, on 4-3-6, four 197-foot radio towers that broadcast KMIA-AM (710), a Spanish station in Phoenix, were brought down by vandals with a torch.
The Resistance is growing.:cool:
Having posted this, I do not advocate illegal activities, including illegal border crossings.
Biker

Fletchette
April 6, 2006, 05:53 PM
I have a close friend who immigrated legally, filling out hundreds of forms, paying a lot of money (example: $500 for an AIDS test) and waiting for days in various offices. He is furious at the prospect of current illegal immigrants getting any form of amnesty. I do not blame him.

My question: Could legal immigrants file a class action lawsuit if amnesty is granted?

Blue Jays
April 6, 2006, 05:54 PM
Hi Biker-

Vandals using a cutting torch on Spanish-language-only radio antennae! What a crime. I hope the resources we use to capture those people is similar to the amount of resources that O.J. Simpson spent to find the "real killers" of Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman a few years ago.

~ Blue Jays ~

1 old 0311
April 6, 2006, 05:54 PM
Go for it.........Hell I will even kick a few bucks in.


Kevin

real_name
April 6, 2006, 05:57 PM
I have a close friend who immigrated legally, filling out hundreds of forms, paying a lot of money

$6000 the last time I counted.
Worth every last cent.

But litigation isn't the answer, certainly not a class action suit anyway.
The cost would just be transferred to the taxpayer if the plaintiffs won.

Instead we need to address the lawmakers at election time.


(I said I wouldn't post in this sub-forum, so feel free to imagine I said whatever you wanted to hear.)

Molon Labe
April 6, 2006, 05:59 PM
And he had a bag of cocaine.

And he drove through a military base's front gate.

And he was probably drunk.

Illegals are allowed to get away with things you never could:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1606970.php

Biker
April 6, 2006, 05:59 PM
The culprits who perped this crime should be punished as harshly as are the vandals who 'tag' neighborhoods with spray paint.
Thanks to the hooligans who brought down these towers, it may be difficult for the organisers of the next Million Illegal March to get their message out.
It jus' ain't right.
Hang 'em high...
Biker

spartacus2002
April 6, 2006, 06:00 PM
According to the Arizona Republic, on 4-3-6, four 197-foot radio towers that broadcast KMIA-AM (710), a Spanish station in Phoenix, were brought down by vandals with a torch.
The Resistance is growing.
Having posted this, I do not advocate illegal activities, including illegal border crossings.
Biker

Excellent!

dasmi
April 6, 2006, 06:01 PM
Remind me again why I have to obey the law?

Molon Labe
April 6, 2006, 06:02 PM
Remind me again why I have to obey the law?Because you're a citizen. Shame on you! :fire:

liberty911
April 6, 2006, 06:04 PM
Sounds more like he was deported to save medical expenses on tax payers and an arret warrant wil be issued if he is caught back in the US. Places the US in a Catch 22. You arrest him and the taxpayers will bear the costs for medical and a long term jail sentence, then deportation. You deport him and taxpayers avoid the costs. This just cuts to the chase.

Biker
April 6, 2006, 06:05 PM
Please, do not glorify these American Resistance Fighters, it will only encourage others like them.:)
Biker

c_yeager
April 6, 2006, 06:05 PM
He was sent to Mexico. Would you rather he be allowed to stay in this country to await trial? Do you want illegals to stay here or not?

MadMag
April 6, 2006, 06:08 PM
FEMA declares a national emergency due to the threatened Latino May Day strike. In case of power outages they are suggesting the use of emergency generators. FEMA contacted McDonald’s to ask if they could provide mobile food units to the field workers. McDonald’s said they are on their own because they only have a commitment of a total of ten workers company wide showing up on May 1st. Two of those workers are the CEO & CFO of McDonald’s….and they ain’t slinging no hamburgers! The remaining eight workers refused to be identified.;)

liberty911
April 6, 2006, 06:12 PM
To start, no damages and governmental immunity would bar suit. Those granted amnesty would still have to pay their fees. It's not "poof" your a citizen.

danurve
April 6, 2006, 06:25 PM
STOP GIVING ILLEGALS WELFARE

danurve
April 6, 2006, 06:40 PM
How the frik long do you think it took him to get back into the country?
About as long as it takes to get past the drive-through at McDonnalds.

Desertdog
April 6, 2006, 06:41 PM
IMO there is seveal levels of immigrants, regardless of where they are from. Each should be handled appropriately for their circumstances.

1) Legal immigrants that follow the rules. Welcome to the USA.

2) Illegal immigrants that actually provide for themselves, has been trying to learn English, and has been assimilating to USA norms since they arrived; give them a chance to become legal.

3) Migrant farm workers that want to work the season and then go back home. Let the American Consulate, in their home country; give them a permit to travel to the USA to work. Make sure they go back home until the next season.

4) Immigrant free loaders, lawbreakers and trouble makers should be deported as soon as possible.

Thefabulousfink
April 6, 2006, 06:47 PM
Mabey we should just force him to drive across the border, drunk, with the drugs and the gun. Then the Mexican Authorities can arrest him and put him in Mexican jail. And if the Authorities won't arrest him I am sure we can find a few to bribe (it is cheeper than paying for a prison cell).:cool:

Fletchette
April 6, 2006, 06:59 PM
Damages are the money and time it took to comply with immigration laws.

real_name
April 6, 2006, 07:06 PM
But that wasn't 'damage', I chose to pursue that goal and knew full well that it would take time and money.
I agree fully that illegals should not be allowed to get around the legal requirements, I am more annoyed than most people can imagine by the whole situation. But I don't think the answer is to sue the US government, maybe the Mexican government for encouraging them but not the US.
I would prefer to volunteer my services as an informant, identifying any and all illegals I ever come across. Once we have an enforced penalty program that is though.

Waitone
April 6, 2006, 07:07 PM
Actually, I think a couple of suits are winding their way through the system now. My memory reminds me one suit is using RICO charges against an employer.

Fletchette
April 6, 2006, 07:11 PM
But that wasn't 'damage', I chose to pursue that goal and knew full well that it would take time and money.

Sure it was. Legal immigrants spent thousands of dollars each because they were told they needed to do so in order to become citizens. Now, it turns out, all they had to do was walk across the border illegally and receive amnesty.

real_name
April 6, 2006, 07:13 PM
I am a legal immigrant, soon to be citizen.
It doesn't 'damage' me that they live here illegally and might get an amnesty.
Sure, it annoys me more than I can convey but in my book annoyance isn't sufficient grounds for litigation.

crazed_ss
April 6, 2006, 07:25 PM
That isnt even the issue.

The correct answer is: STOP GIVING ILLEGALS JOBS

ken grant
April 6, 2006, 09:11 PM
Control the borders NOW!!!!!!!!!! Nothing else will work until this is done.

308win
April 6, 2006, 09:15 PM
We need to make this Mexico's problem as well.

1. Reduce any foreign aid we give them by the amount of money the illegals send to Mexico.
2. Progressively shut off the flow of water to Mexico in rivers originating in the US.
3. Abrogate the NAFTA treaty at least as it relates to Mexico.
4. Deny Mexican trucks rights to use US highways.

Waitone
April 6, 2006, 09:19 PM
It happens a number of RICO related suits are working throught the system.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_13/b3977087.htm
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/lawsuit.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169970,00.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021406dnbusRicosuit.d1aef3f.html
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122541509823

Shadizar
April 6, 2006, 11:25 PM
I think illegal imigration is an issue. I don't think we are looking at the right aspect of immigration however. Illegal immigrants are taking American jobs at the lower end. I don't think thats an issue.

The real problem we have is that businesses in this country are moving outside our shores to get cheaper labor. I do not believe this country has a manufacturing base anymore. Even chemical industries are moving out (one of the few manufacturers we have left).

From the standpoint of a manufacturer, why hire Americans? Seriously! If you can open manufacturing centers around the world which will operate outside of this country for a much better profit, why stop? Inside this country the manufacturer can hire skilled foreign workers at lower wages. These are not unskilled laborors. They are highly educated and highly motivated. They will work for lower wages for the same output.

These same people are not low paid farm workers. The middle class of this country is not being threatened by farm workers. They are being threatened by the educated workers of India and China (among others).

In all reality, what manufacturing is left in the U.S.? Every manufacturer with half a brain is leaving U.S. shores. The cost of employing U.S. workers compared to offshore workers is too high. Pensions are being eradicated. This is a fact. We can not compete.

No level of immigration reform is going to change that. The immigration issue is a red herring. We have deeper problems. I am not sure what the solution to that is. I suspect the only solution is that we will have to accept lower wages (and we have no say in that). China, India, Taiwan, etc... can outcompete us. Imigration is not the problem.

We must somehow take back our manufacturing base. Our current trade balance is only a berometer of that. The issue is much more than migrant workers (i.e. Mexicans). If we concentrate on that we will miss the larger issue.

-Shadizar

P.S. History notes that only countries in decline, or with economic problems focus on immigration issues to solve their problems.

Desertdog
April 7, 2006, 12:01 AM
The cost of employing U.S. workers compared to offshore workers is too high.
Wages are only part of the problem. Enviorimental rules and regulations, and healtcare insurance cost, are big problems. Federal and State Government laws and taxes are the biggest problems.

No wonder they are leaving for places out of the country.

Here is an example of what can happen when goverment is not in the way. The Empire State Building, for years the tallest building in the US, took 18 months from idea to completion. For a project like that; how long would it take for the Enviormental Impact Report to be completed today?

real_name
April 7, 2006, 01:20 AM
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/BorderDisorder/images/grondahl.gif

longeyes
April 7, 2006, 01:24 AM
The law--what a concept!

beerslurpy
April 7, 2006, 01:27 AM
I was going to say something about all human beings having a natural right to have guns for their defense, but that was before I read about the cocaine and the army base and the drunk driving.

Why didnt they just shoot him? I mean, technically it is against the law, but why not just go for a hat trick and break the few laws he missed?

Roadkill Coyote
April 7, 2006, 01:35 AM
Notice the important part

An arrest warrant will probably be issued for Lopez-Sanchez after his return to Mexico, and he would be subject to arrest if he ever returned, entered in the National Crime Information Center’s database.

He will be charged, so statute of limitations doesn't run out, and the warrant will remain in the computer so that IF he recovers and comes back, he can still be thrown in jail.

They just don't want to put his hospital bill on the local taxpayers.

Cosmoline
April 7, 2006, 01:37 AM
I have the solution. Take his car, his gun, his coke and his clothes. Leave him naked on the street. No bills, plus the government gets to sell his stuff for cash money. The state is under no duty to assist anyone unless they're taken into custody. So if he's just going to be kicked loose anyway, why bother taking him into custody?

Shadizar
April 7, 2006, 01:49 AM
Wages are only part of the problem. Enviorimental rules and regulations, and healtcare insurance cost, are big problems. Federal and State Government laws and taxes are the biggest problems.


Thats what I was trying to get at. Wages for low cost workers are not the issue. Middle America is suffering from far greater problems. How many people here are competing with a <$5/hour salary? Its the engineers and computer specialists that we have to worry about. Not the cherry pickers...

Yet we are being corraled to think that the low cost workers are the threat. What threat are they to the middle class?

-Shadizar

Roadkill Coyote
April 7, 2006, 02:00 AM
Well, if they were going to give him due process before taking his property (and we all think seizure of property with out it is a bad thing, right?) Then they might as well go ahead and charge him. We, the taxpayers would end up paying the hospital bill anyway. Besides, the truck is going to end up impound until it gets sold, and the gun will be in evidence from now on. So he DID lose his stuff, and he's getting kicked out of the country.

Cosmoline
April 7, 2006, 02:10 AM
They don't have to arrest him in order to take his stuff, esp. if there's a big bag of coke in his car. I very much doubt he had the requisite insurance, for example. The obligation to treat wounds only comes into play once an arrest is made. Otherwise they can let him lie there with broken legs. They just don't have the guts to do it.

Roadkill Coyote
April 7, 2006, 02:28 AM
First, the ambulance is gonna take him to the hospital anyway, and we are going to end up paying that bill. Second, whose to say that there was a big bag of coke? Can I make that call, as a law enforcement officer, and just take someone's property? Will you trust me to determine the presence of drugs and seize peoples vehicles and weapons WITHOUT due process? I'll pass, thank you very much. It is annoying, and in a perfect world, he'd get jail time here, but this isn't a perfect world.

Waitone
April 7, 2006, 08:06 AM
The reason manufacturers leave the US is because barriers to exit have dropped and the reasons for higher employment costs have remained high. We get all bent out of shape over "low wages" paid to illegal immigrants (a real problem) but have no outrage over plantation Uncle Sam is creating in the middle of America. Congress gives us fuss and feathers in appearing to fix one problem yet steadfastly refuses to a>admit there is a problem with fed.gov mandated costs, and b>do anything about the situation.

The US can easily compete. For whatever reason our federal massahs have decided to hobble the US worker with the chains of a leviathan welfare state.

JoeSF
April 7, 2006, 10:18 AM
Professional people all across America have illegal immigrants working for them in some capacity doing the work blue collar Americans won't do anymore. For them illegal immigration is a bonus. The Wall Street Journal talks up the immigration issue and its 20% contribution to wage deflation as a definite plus.

While in the private sector workers such as tradesmen and other taxpayers have their wages sacraficed on the alter of deflation, public employees (teachers, bus drivers, etc.) still strike for more pay. Who do they think pays the freight?

I don’t know how many times I meet legal immigrants driving cabs, etc telling me they were a doctor, engineer, teacher in their old country (usually from Eastern Europe) but that they can’t practice their profession here. Some of them must be qualified to do something like teach math.

So how about it. If it’s such a good thing for the economy to have wage deflation, lets hire immigrants to compete with the "Protected Jobs" for lower pay. Why shouldn’t everyone get to experience the lie "Jobs Americans won’t do anymore?” There must be some good writers who can go to work for the WSJ for less. Some of those doctors and engineers driving cabs must be qualified. City workers forget your strike, we can get it done for less.

Manedwolf
April 7, 2006, 10:26 AM
"Jobs Americans Won't Do" is an insult to people whose parents or grandparents were, say, dustbowl farmers who LIVED "The Grapes of Wrath".

If there's hardworking Americans who want a job, any job, and there's a lot who do...I don't think there's "jobs they won't do".

Of course, that statement came out of the mouth of the spoiled scion of Connecticut wealth, who never worked a hard day in his life and whose daddy bailed out all his business failures.

mtnbkr
April 7, 2006, 10:31 AM
I think Jobs Americans Won't Do is an insult to Americans who will do the work, but not for $2.50/hour while living 20+ to a house.

Before illegals became common in the southeast and midatlantic area, I knew plenty Americans that would do the hard or dirty work for low, but honest wages (with and without benefits). It only became an issue when illegals started doing the work for less than minimum wage because they were willing to live like hive animals (this phenomenom exists in my own neighborhood, I know they do it this way).

Chris

pcf
April 7, 2006, 10:35 AM
There are plenty of jobs Americans won't to for $2.75 an hour, under the table. Americans won't clean toilets for $2.75 an hour, even if they don't have to pay taxes on it. Americans won't pick fruit for 10 hours a day even with a hefty paycheck of $27.50 a day.

Some Americans are total ingrates.:rolleyes:

Next time someone says "jobs Americans won't do" ask them if they'd do their job for 66% less, and no benefits.

wingman
April 7, 2006, 11:07 AM
Next time someone says "jobs Americans won't do" ask them if they'd do their job for 66% less, and no benefits.


Rich /poor society that is our direction, when the middle-class is gone
then it will end freedom as we know it and take for granted.

merk
April 7, 2006, 11:13 AM
Tell you what, if every illegal was booted out of this country right this second, and there was a job vacuum that HAD to be filled. We take every able bodied American freeloader off of welfare(should be done anyways). Either theyll choose to not get wages and live on the streets, or theyll choose the job they supposedly dont want.

critter
April 7, 2006, 11:18 AM
Merk +1 !

Never gonna happen in this nanny state with all the have-to-be PC ultralibs.

longeyes
April 7, 2006, 11:25 AM
It used to be aristocrats versus serfs.

Now it's "tenured" versus non-tenured. If you're non-tenured, expect a bumpy life.

Vern Humphrey
April 7, 2006, 11:40 AM
While in the private sector workers such as tradesmen and other taxpayers have their wages sacraficed on the alter of deflation,

What does this mean?

longeyes
April 7, 2006, 11:47 AM
I too believe the U.S. can compete--if we smarten up and if we adjust our priorities. For fifty years the U.S. has carried the "free world" militarily and gotten nothing back but accelerating competition from nations that don't need to pay their own defense bills. We'd better address that. Then we'd better look hard at the rampant theft of our intellectual property. Making sure other nations aren't dumping or using slave labor wouldn't be a bad idea either. If it were up to me, I'd accept the reality that we've let ourselves become an addicted "consumer-driven economy" and charge foreign nations for the privilege of accessing our huge consumer market (yes, tariffs--and I'm a believer in "free trade"). We need those monies to build up our infrastructure and refocus our educational system beyond "feel good" to "think straight." American needs, in terms of trade, to put on its war face. We are not going to sustain our economy and advance our political ideals by massively importing and increasingly depending on low-skill workers and fungible "service jobs."

wingman
April 7, 2006, 11:58 AM
I too believe the U.S. can compete--if we smarten up and if we adjust our priorities. For fifty years the U.S. has carried the "free world" militarily and gotten nothing back but accelerating competition from nations that don't need to pay their own defense bills. We'd better address that. Then we'd better look hard at the rampant theft of our intellectual property. Making sure other nations aren't dumping or using slave labor wouldn't be a bad idea either. If it were up to me, I'd accept the reality that we've let ourselves become an addicted "consumer-driven economy" and charge foreign nations for the privilege of accessing our huge consumer market (yes, tariffs--and I'm a believer in "free trade"). We need those monies to build up our infrastructure and refocus our educational system beyond "feel good" to "think straight." American needs, in terms of trade, to put on its war face. We are not going to sustain our economy and advance our political ideals by massively importing and increasingly depending on low-skill workers and fungible "service jobs."



Excellent Longeyes, at some point America lost it's direction but we do need
hard change and perhaps short term it would be traumatic but long term it's
necessary.

longeyes
April 7, 2006, 12:10 PM
Yes, my view exactly. Perhaps we're in the throes of that painful change right now, as bleak as it sometimes seems. No one said it was going to be easy to keep this Republic; we just forgot about that.

What America will look like 20 years down the road is anyone's guess. But I'd like to think that the essence of the place will survive, that the spirit will prevail.

JoeSF
April 7, 2006, 12:20 PM
Vern,
It means what it says. If you work for the private sector your job can be affected by an illegal willing to work for less and is on avearge a 20% reduction . If you work in a so called tenured or professionally protected job (like by the AMA) you are immune. Maybe everyone should be asked to contribute to wage deflation if it's such a good idea? Or we could really regulate the border instead.
Joe

JoeSF
April 7, 2006, 07:51 PM
SF mayor encourages police not to enforce illegal immigration laws...
from
http://www.freshcleanday.com/converse.html

Well he's at it again. Now he and S.F.'s Board of Stupidvisors are urging San Franciscos law enforcement agencies not to comply with criminal provisions of any new federal immigration bill. Newsom said, " If people think we were defiant in the gay marriage issue, they haven't seen defiance."

Waitone
April 7, 2006, 08:28 PM
Ahh, the mayor of SF is at it again, refusing to enforce law with which he disagrees OR law that he finds inconvenient to obey.

Don't know about you but I find that attitude in government specifically to be grandly frightening. The idea government can create law then exempt itself from obedience is flat out non-American.

Now at what point will Joe and Martha Sixpack come to the conclusion they are a matched pair of museum-grade idiots for voluntarily obeying laws which the government itself refuses to obey with impunity. When Joe and Martha finally reach their personal tipping point, how will it be manifested? A what point will Joe and Martha become lawbreakers and then move to flagrant lawbreaking? Common sense says at some point common people will say "That's it!" count me in. At that point the US ceases to publicly be a country ruled by law.

longeyes
April 7, 2006, 08:52 PM
Now at what point will Joe and Martha Sixpack come to the conclusion they are a matched pair of museum-grade idiots for voluntarily obeying laws which the government itself refuses to obey with impunity. When Joe and Martha finally reach their personal tipping point, how will it be manifested? A what point will Joe and Martha become lawbreakers and then move to flagrant lawbreaking? Common sense says at some point common people will say "That's it!" count me in. At that point the US ceases to publicly be a country ruled by law.

I've been saying the same thing. America is watching the pols very carefully, just as they've been watching the judges. A process of de-legitimization is taking place, deliberate or no. At some point they are going to feel they have been played for suckers and start saying as they do elsewhere (Italy comes to mind), "The heck with them, obeying the law's for fools." That will not be a good day for this nation.

Lone_Gunman
April 7, 2006, 11:58 PM
Since Pax closed a new thread started by another member and suggested that it could have been included in one the immigration threads that have been allowed to remain open, I thought I would post the comment made in the other thread. Its kinda important, since it is a quote from the US Constitution:

U.S. Constitution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARTICLE 1,SECTION 8

The Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the LAWS OF THE UNION,suppress INSURRECTIONS and to REPEL INVASIONS

Call,Fax or E-mail your REPs and ask them (NO,DEMAND THEM) to do their jobs according to the above


Personally, I think the Constitutional implications of illegal immigration are worthy of their own thread, but if not, I thought it could be discussed here instead.

Its a shame that the founders expected the Congress to actually do their part to allow enforcement of the laws of the nation, isnt it?

Sindawe
April 8, 2006, 12:13 AM
Its a shame that the founders expected the Congress to actually enforce the laws of the nation, isnt it? Ahh...but they did not expect Congress to enforce the laws. Congress is part of the Legislative branch of our government, and is responsible for writting the laws. Implementing and enforcing those laws falls apon the Executive branch of our government, and that branch is currently headed up by our good buddy George. Congress can call up the Militia, but it is the President who is in charge of the Militia once its been called up.

Lone_Gunman
April 8, 2006, 12:19 AM
Sindawe, they haven't done their job though, have they ? (despite my poorly worded comment about "enforcing".)

Imagine the fiasco that would be created if the Congress called up the militia to defend the border, and then Bush was forced to either do something, or admit that he won't.

I've edited my previous post for clarity.

Desertdog
April 8, 2006, 12:20 AM
Also in Article 1, Section 8 is this jewel
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

RealGun
April 8, 2006, 03:44 AM
Cost to Remove 12M Illegal Immigrants Huge
By MARTHA MENDOZA (AP National Writer)
From Associated Press
April 07, 2006 10:59 PM EDT

As Congress debates immigration reforms, some experts say the most extreme proposal - deporting millions of illegal immigrants - would be a huge legal and logistical morass, and ruinously expensive, too.

Officials at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which would be responsible for deportations, said they have no projections on what it would take to rid the United States of an estimated 12 million people.

But the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, has put the cost at $215 billion over five years.

The study assumed that a crackdown would prompt a quarter of the nation's illegal immigrants to leave voluntarily, leaving 9 million men, women and children to deport.

balance of article (http://tinyurl.com/qzrcp)

Lone_Gunman
April 8, 2006, 08:00 AM
Officials at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which would be responsible for deportations, said they have no projections on what it would take to rid the United States of an estimated 12 million people.


They have projection of cost because it is our government's policy to make deportation of illegals look like too big of a job to be possible.

$215 Billion has to be a pretty big overestimate. That means it will cost almost $18,000 per individual. I see no way it could cost that much.

Even if we accept $215 billion, though, it would be a very small price to pay, especially over 5 yrs. That is about half of the BASE defense budget for the single year 2007, which is $439.3 billion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates we have spent $320 billion dollars on the War in Iraq and Afghanistan.

RealGun
April 8, 2006, 08:10 AM
But the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank

Well, I wonder what the cost estimate number would be from a conservative think tank. Wouldn't the expense be breathtaking either way, regardless of bias toward making the numbers look good or bad?

I assume a big chunk of it would be staffing, detainment facilities and services, and transportation. If you build a bureaucracy around it, imagine the complexity and delay in dispositioning people. What if you take on permanent entitlements for government employees? An overriding guideline is to reduce the federal payroll, so how does all this work?

Eventually I think more people will realize and accept that any "solution" must be a practical compromise. We can all beat each other up for allowing the situation to have occurred but have a common resolve how to fix it and move on.

Lone_Gunman
April 8, 2006, 08:16 AM
I don't see a reason to compromise, if it could be done for as little as $215 billion. I think thats an overestimate, but even so would be willing to accept higher taxes temporarily to fund it. Thats not much money on a federal level.

And I think fewer people will be willing to compromise on this issue in the future as they realize how impotent the government has been to do anything about the problem. In fact, I think if nothing happens, we will see this issue become increasingly violent. I suspect the next racial riots in Los Angeles will not be black versus white, but hispanic versus other, and the issue at hand will be illegal immigration.

National security would be better served by cutting our spending on military items for a few years if necessary to physically close the border and deport the illegals.

Heck, I would even be willing to consider just physically closing the border with a wall or fence, and not even rounding the ones already here up. Until the whole in the bottom of the boat is patched, bailing out the water won't necessarily help.

Also, $215 billion would be less than $2000 per US taxpayer, if it was paid with income tax. Over 5 yrs, that is only about an extra $400 per year. I think it would be worth that much to most people.

longeyes
April 8, 2006, 01:07 PM
Hey, no problem, just add it onto the National Debt, yet another problem about which "we can do nothing!"

When you are in a lifeboat that is already taking on water and 100 more people want on, you might want to consider survival-directed action, not count beans.

longeyes
April 8, 2006, 01:10 PM
Well, folks, good government costs money. Developing a Ministry of Reverse Migration will take Chertoff-level talent and competitive salaries and benefits. Let's not skimp on what we need.

I still think we deport Congress first and see what happens.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illegal Immigration-How to fix it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!