Oh Goody! Its amnesty time for illegal aliens

[nemesis]

No matter what we do illegals will still come here. Kind of like supply and demand with illegal drugs. The United States is a sought after place to live and there is no shortage of people in other countries who want to live here so badly that they'll do it illegally.

That isn't a rational response. They wouldn't come here if employers stopped hiring illegals in defiance of the law and they would simply stay home if there were no free social benefits to live on. Take away the Food Stamps, WIC, County Health Services, free Emergency Room health care, free education for illegal children, government funded housing obtained through grants to Proyecta Azteca and all the benefits that I've overlooked and they would still be in Zacatecas, Michoacan and Jalisco.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate will introduce legislation today that could grant legal status to an estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.

I say we round up the above captioned Democrats and Republicans and charge them with treason. Upon conviction, they are to be tarred and feathered, placed on public display for three days, stripped of their offices and pensions, then returned home to live out their sorry days.

 

[dloken]

They wouldn't come here if employers stopped hiring illegals in defiance of the law and they would simply stay home if there were no free social benefits to live on.

Then how do you explain the massive immigration the United States experienced in the 1800s and 1900s when we didn't have those kinds of social programs?

Yes, it's a burden on our hospitals to treat people who have no money but I believe that it is inhumane (And illegal from my understanding) to deny anyone emergancy medical treatment. It's something i'm willing to see my tax dollars go to because I believe in humanity. So do you other people just propose we let poor people/illegals just die on the sidewalk?

 

[Sindawe]

I say we round up the above captioned Democrats and Republicans and charge them with treason. Upon conviction, they are to be tarred and feathered, placed on public display for three days, stripped of their offices and pensions, then returned home to live out their sorry days.

Tarring can be greatly injurious or fatal. I recomend the use something a little less drastic, like say molasses or concentrated malt extract. Still sticky and uncomfortable, but not harmfull. As a bonus, it tends to attract flies, wasps and ants.

Improving the control of the border would be a dandy first step. Pull the troops from say, Germany and the other European nations and deploy them on the southern border to start. Build a REAL fence, like we've built 'tween North and South Korea would be another fine step.

Additionally, rewrite/amend the laws so that EVERYBODY in the money chain is liable when illegals are hired. As they stand now, only the direct employer of illegals can get in trouble, per ICE. If my HOA hires a landscaping firm that hires illegals, we (the HOA) have no responsibility and face no legal repercussions. I know, I looked into that as a possible avenue to get the HOA to change its policy/choice of landscaping firms.

 

[mrhuckins]

I'm pretty fed-up with illegals using up our American resources, and not contributing much if anything back to us. I also welcome legal immigration.

Don't you guys think that perhaps the national ID that we are going to be forced to participate in will help resolve some of the problem with illegal immigration?

 

[wingman]

It's something i'm willing to see my tax dollars go to because I believe in humanity. So do you other people just propose we let poor people/illegals just die on the sidewalk?

I do not believe anyone wishes to see someone die on the sidewalk as you
say however please explain if we continue with our present policy in that
we take in more people then the rest of the world combined do you believe
our system will not fail. If we fall and your family cannot get medical help
do you think you can go to Mexico, china, etc for medical care? I carry
this to the extreme however we are going in that direction unless we have
"some control" on our borders. Remember we too can fail it can happen and
it will happen if the numbers continue up, the only winners in this game we
play are the wealthy on both sides of the border.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yep something has to be done. Through out the THR numerous proposals have been made. My problem is I have ABOSLUTELY NO CONFIDENCE in the current "political class" to do the right things to ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM. I have every confidence the "political class" will shake down the social elites to create a solution which will be perfectly acceptable to the "ruling class" which is composed of the political class and those who pay the political class (academia, media, and law). The essential element will be money, access to money, and power. The current ruling class will sell us out in one skinny, Noo Yark minute

Political classes. Social elites. Ruling class.

I thought all the Communists were either dead or in universities somewhere.

 

[garyk/nm]

Oh, man, I feel a serious rant coming on.......Better just shut up because what I want to say WILL get me arrested.

dloken, please take your liberal bleatings over to D.U. I'm sure you will be welcome there. We are not discussing legal immigrants; we are talking about illegal border-hoppers. What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand? As to the E.R. thing, who decides what is an emergency? I don't know where you live, but here in the SW, ERs are used as walk-in clinics. I recently had occasion to be taken to a small town ER, and had to wait 2 HOURS to be seen because of all of the cases of sniffles and skinned knees crowding the place!

<deep breath>

So.... 50cal vs armored limos.....effective?

 

[The Rabbi]

Improving the control of the border would be a dandy first step. Pull the troops from say, Germany and the other European nations and deploy them on the southern border to start. Build a REAL fence, like we've built 'tween North and South Korea would be another fine step

That's a joke. The Korean peninsula is about 480 miles wide. The US border with Mexico is about 2000 miles wide.
As far as redeploying troops, first arent we in a war and having troubles with manpower needs? Second, what kind of expense would this entail and is it worth it to solve a "problem" that I am not at all certain exists. Third, the proposal falls afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act and is probably illegal.
Next proposal please.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Don't you guys think that perhaps the national ID that we are going to be forced to participate in will help resolve some of the problem with illegal immigration?

You can't possibly be serious. No, really, you can't be.

is it worth it to solve a "problem" that I am not at all certain exists.

See above comment.

 

[Sindawe]

The Korean peninsula is about 480 miles wide. The US border with Mexico is about 2000 miles wide.

So roughly 4x difference in the distance to be fenced 'tween the Korean peninsula and our southern border. We as a nation can pave tens of thousands of miles of interstate highways, over forests, swamps, deserts and mountains, fling men and machines to the moon, Mars, the outer planets and beyond, but we can't errect an effective fence. Shoot, look at what the Han Emperors and others did with manual labor, straw and mud. :banghead:

As far as redeploying troops, first arent we in a war and having troubles with manpower needs?

We are? I've not seen any Declaration of War out of congress lately, have you? Are in at war with Germany, the Philippines, Japan or the majority of the other nations were we have men and materials deployed? Nope.

OK Rabbi, I've offered up MY suggestions to help control our southern border, whats yours?

 

[2nd Amendment]

He doesn't appear to see anything needing control, thus he has no solution nor will he find yours valuable.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK Rabbi, I've offered up MY suggestions to help control our southern border, whats yours?

I think Bush's proposal is as good as any.

I find it interesting that the very same people who argue that the war on drugs is unwinnable because we have spent lots of money with little result also seem to think that we can win the war on illegal immigration by spending more money, even though we have spent increasing amounts of money over the last 25 years It is equally interesting that the very same people who oppose the war on drugs because it is an infringement on individual freedom also support the war on illegal immigration, thus infringing on people's right to free movement.

Sindawe, if you dont think we are at war then you obviously dont recognize the Korean War or the Vietnam War either. In fact there have been numerous little wars the US has fought without declaration by Congress. But if you prefer the term "bake sale" to war then let's use that.
The US is at bakesale now and has a large need for personnel and redirecting those personnel to a bakesale on immigration would be counterproductive.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Judging by the base closure list the need for men and material must not be that great...

 

[RevDisk]

If someone has a better solution please post it so we can all critique it.

Simple. Rewards for people that narc on businesses highing illegal workers. It's probably not a wise idea to toss the business owners in jail. Simply fining them would be enough, doesn't have to be an insane amount. Just more than they are profitting. They continue using illegals, they continuing getting fined. Collected fines are recycled to paying for the courts, police, border, rewards, etc. Remove the economic incentives to the crime.

As I understand, it's already illegal to hire illegal aliens.

What are the problems with my solution?

 

[2nd Amendment]

Your solution is to enforce the law. A part of the law, anyway. FIne, works for me. Let's also enforce all the rest of it. Catch an illegal crossing? Send 'em back. Catch an Illegal driving? Take their car and then send 'em back. Catch one working, sleeping, eating, etc? Send 'em back.

Close the borders down as much as possible by whatever means is required, then catch the ones here and send 'em back. That's all anyone wants and what you are supporting in part. So where's the problem or disagreement?

 

[The Rabbi]

Simple. Rewards for people that narc on businesses highing illegal workers. It's probably not a wise idea to toss the business owners in jail. Simply fining them would be enough, doesn't have to be an insane amount. Just more than they are profitting. They continue using illegals, they continuing getting fined. Collected fines are recycled to paying for the courts, police, border, rewards, etc. Remove the economic incentives to the crime.

As I understand, it's already illegal to hire illegal aliens.

What are the problems with my solution?

I think you answered the question. Its already illegal to hire illegal aliens so how will making it more illegal help?
Further, how many businesses knowingly hire illegals?
If they know it is illegal to do so why do they continue?
What would happen to industries like agriculture and building if you made it prohibitive to hire labor?

Your solution is to enforce the law. A part of the law, anyway. FIne, works for me. Let's also enforce all the rest of it. Catch an illegal crossing? Send 'em back. Catch an Illegal driving? Take their car and then send 'em back. Catch one working, sleeping, eating, etc? Send 'em back.
Close the borders down as much as possible by whatever means is required, then catch the ones here and send 'em back. That's all anyone wants and what you are supporting in part. So where's the problem or disagreement?

So lets re-write this a little:

Catch a person using drugs, put em in jail. Catch him using drugs in his car? Take the car and put him in jail. Catch one using drugs at work? Fire him and put him in jail. Close down the drug trade as much as possible by whatever means is required.

So what if those means included a national ID card with biometric information? What if it meant immigration agents showing up at people's homes unannounced and making a search and collecting IDs. Legal Mexican immigrants and illegal ones look pretty much the same. Legal Irish immigrants and illegal ones look pretty much the same. There is no "them" and "us" --whatever you do to "them" will have an impact on "us" as well.

 

[2nd Amendment]

I'm not certain why it is you're trying to associate this issue with the Wo(some)D, other than its obvious strawman value on a board full of libertarian leaning conservatives. Whatever, there's no logical association, since we are talking about foreigners illegally entering the country and additionally causing problems and engaging in illegal acts and demanding special "rights", not US Citizens engaging in recreation the government has chosen to make illegal fairly recently, and very selectively, as a revenue generator..

You do see the difference, and why any such comparison is totally absurd, right?

 

[Master Blaster]

Then how do you explain the massive immigration the United States experienced in the 1800s and 1900s when we didn't have those kinds of social programs?

DLOKEN,

ALL of my grandparents came here in the early 1900s. They scrimmped and saved and sent one family memeber here legally. That person came through Ellis Island, and contacted others already here so he had a place to stay. He looked for honest work as a legal immigrant, worked for years, learned the language on his own ( he only spoke russian and Yiddish when he arrived), saved the money he earned, and after 10 years got visas for his family and sent them 3rd class tickets on a steamship here. They arrived legally, learned to speak english went to school, and became tax paying American citizens.

They did not sneak across the border, they did not rely on handouts, or seek work illegally.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not certain why it is you're trying to associate this issue with the Wo(some)D, other than its obvious strawman value on a board full of libertarian leaning conservatives. Whatever, there's no logical association, since we are talking about foreigners illegally entering the country and additionally causing problems and engaging in illegal acts and demanding special "rights", not US Citizens engaging in recreation the government has chosen to make illegal fairly recently, and very selectively, as a revenue generator..

Do you see that it is inconsistent (maybe even hypocritical) to say that we need to stiffen law enforcement on one kind of illegal activity even though we have been doing this for 25 years while at the same time arguing that because we have been trying to enforce another kind of law for 25 years (or more) without success then we need to give up?
I'll add that immigrants, whatever their status, overall contribute to the health of the US economy while drug addicts, whatever their status, harm the US economy.
What this sounds like is a "Freedom for me but not for thee" argument.

 

[2nd Amendment]

We've now gone from a Strawman to a False Dichotomy. There is nothing hypocritical in decrying the abuse of one law, if that law/laws is immoral/unconstitutional, while demanding the proper enforcement of another law which IS moral and constitutional. If nothing else you're trying to claim all law is equivalent to all other law. Love it or leave it? Sorry, I'm a borderline anarchist on many things and even I don't buy that.

The WoD is questionable on so many fronts it's almost indefensible. The damage caused by it, in loss of freedoms and rights and expansion of government and costs, is beyond argument even by its diminishing number of supporters.

Enforcing immigration laws is not questionable on either moral or constitutional grounds. The failure to enforce them has demonstrably now caused damage to freedom and rights comparable to the enforcement of the WoD. Mirror image issues is what we have here. Your comparisons are specious and your agenda seems obvious.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lemme see if I understand this now:

People want to come here by and large to work and make a better life for themselves. You call preventing them from doing that moral and Constitutional.
People want to take drugs and damage themselves and virtually everyone around them either physically, emotionally, or financially and you call preventing them from doing that immoral and unConstitutional.

I must have missed something.

More, Pres Bush has proposed something that would remove many of these people from the role of law-breakers and make them legal and yet you oppose that too. So your objection cannot be that they are breaking the law. If Bush's proposal passes they will no longer be breaking the law and yet you still oppose it.

You also maintain that illegal immigration has "demonstrably caused damage to freedom and rights" (I have yet to see this demonstrated btw). But your solutions to illegal immigration would be considerably *more* government intrusion into *everyone's* privacy and rights.

 

[wingman]

I'll add that immigrants, whatever their status, overall contribute to the health of the US economy

Please explain where and how. Who do they help. Studies show in
2002 immigration cost taxpayers 68 billion. It's helps one class the rich
here and in Mexico. If you truly believe the average taxpayer has any
benefit from illegal immigration you need to stop watching CBS.

 

[2nd Amendment]

People want to come here by and large to work and make a better life for themselves.

An assumption, based in the past and fully ignoring current events.

You call preventing them from doing that moral and Constitutional.

If they insist on violating the law instead of following long established legal methods yes. How exactly would you claim otherwise?

People want to take drugs and damage themselves and virtually everyone around them

Your assumption based in generalizations and personal opinion and...

either physically, emotionally, or financially and you call preventing them from doing that immoral and unConstitutional.

...immaterial since it is not the government's business to regulate behavior. Also, as was shown by prohibition and attempted gun-grabs, not the within the government's ability, either.

I must have missed something.

Definitely appearing increasingly likely.

More, Pres Bush has proposed something that would remove many of these people from the role of law-breakers and make them legal and yet you oppose that too.

Of course. They break the law to get here, break the law while here, demand special rights and full access to our infrastructure without responsibility and the answer is to give them amnesty? So by your "argument" we'll need to give everyone else amnesty for everything else, too? or does this only apply to non-Citizens, Citizens have to obey all the rules under penalty of jail and Asset Forfeiture?

So your objection cannot be that they are breaking the law.

Another false dichotomy, try again.

If Bush's proposal passes they will no longer be breaking the law and yet you still oppose it.

Round and round we go.

You also maintain that illegal immigration has "demonstrably caused damage to freedom and rights" (I have yet to see this demonstrated btw). But your solutions to illegal immigration would be considerably *more* government intrusion into *everyone's* privacy and rights.

Really? How does intercepting them at the border, at hospitals, at legitimate traffic stops, etc infringe on the Rights of Citzens?

 

[The Rabbi]

Please explain where and how. Who do they help. Studies show iin
2002 immigration cost taxpayers 68 billion. It's helps one class the rich
here and in Mexico. If you truly believe the average taxpayer has any
benefit from illegal immigration you need to stop watching CBS.

Which study are you citing?

Illegal immigrants work and in many cases have witholding on their wages. They live somewhere and pay rent. They buy things and pay sales taxes. They provide lower-cost labor to employers in (esp) construction and agriculture, lowering the cost of those basic goods. You have bought into the Democratic Party's argument that the economy is a zero sum and if some people (e.g. "The Rich") gain then by necessity someone else must lose. Economics doesnt work like that.