Key Questions On Immigration

[Froufrou]

The single most powerful – and upsetting – issue in the United States today is immigration – both illegal and legal. Americans from the Left, Center and Right are all ticked off at the present situation.

-snip-

Here are some of the questions we need to have answered in order to analyze this whole immigration mess.


More Here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/31/131516.shtml)

[jackbenimble]

I read that article a day or two ago. It is pathetic. A huge long list of questions and no attempt at providing an answer. I could have answered several of the guy's questions but isn't that his job?

Regards,
Jack

[Froufrou]

Ouch, Jack! *I was hoping at least, if it's read enough, others who don't agree with us on the need to prioritize may wake up and smell the Columbian.

[arthur]

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ------- study , study , study . some people probably think that the issue requires more study and fairminded thought to come to a good , honest and fair conclusion that can be happily accepted by all of the affected parties . even now i know that i'm not going to like the answers when THEY come up with the solution !! http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Froufrou]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">even now i know that i'm not going to like the answers when THEY come up with the solution !! [/QUOTE]

arthur - why is that? What do expect to come of it?

[arthur]

in my opinion it's just going to continue frou frou . the dems want illegal immigration and the repubs want illegal immigration . --- i mean , i'm watching and waiting but i hear nothing concerning illegals or general immigration issues that i approve of . i am aware of certain proposals because i read about them on this and other boards but i do not support any of the proposals that i can think of at the moment while answering your question . ------ i hope i'm wrong frou frou but i guess i've seen this going on for too long to think that it will change . ----- arthur

[Froufrou]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">i hope i'm wrong frou frou but i guess i've seen this going on for too long to think that it will change . [/QUOTE]

I've had the same thought, arthur. Sometimes it's hard to keep optimistic when it looks like the subject is still being pushed aside. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ne_nau.gif Why?

[ncfm]

Just a thought, but seeing as how we have a putative quota system anyway (that is to say, we have a number in mind with regard to how many legal immigrants we plan to allow into the country), why not make this number contingent on our deporting the exact same number of illegal immigrants? If nothing else, this would force lawmakers to acknowledge just how bad things are. My reasoning, afterall, we can't put more students in a school if we don't graduate some kids each year, we can't put any more felons into jails if we don't release some prisoners, The same with hospitals, either someone has to go home (or die) before we can accomodate someone else. And we certainly can't improve the standard of living for Americans if we continue to allow cheap labor interests to drive our immigration policy.

Plain and simple, the more legal immigrants we allow into our society and our economy, the more illegal immigrants that burden our society and economy that should be removed. Since the only control we seem to have over immigration is &quot;how many legal immigrants we plan to allow&quot;, a policy of one illegal immigrant being expatriated for every legal immigrant we allow in, seems like a reasonable first step. An added bonus being that &quot;cheap labor&quot; interests can't whine because they'll still be getting the &quot;complacent, docile, low-skilled, low cost alternatives to American workers&quot; that they want, only these employee's will be legal, and fully capable of exercising their rights in the workplace. Not being able to utilize an underground &quot;cash based&quot; workforce might even have unexpected benefits for our local tax base.

[Froufrou]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">why not make this number contingent on our deporting the exact same number of illegal immigrants? If nothing else, this would force lawmakers to acknowledge just how bad things are. My reasoning, afterall, we can't put more students in a school if we don't graduate some kids each year, we can't put any more felons into jails if we don't release some prisoners, [/QUOTE]

G-E-N-I-U-S!

[arthur]

there ya go !! now don't get mad at me because i'm only politely responding to a thought . but hey , if - ncfm - has the answer and if that is the correct answer why don't we just call all the illegals legal and be done with the issue . the thing that is going to happen [imo] is that all the current illegals in the country will eventually be legalized anyway [ kinda cool , stroke of the pen law of the land . bill klinton style ]. like i've said in the past , illegal immigration should be stopped and legal immigration should be limited to a number that is good for the usa and that can be absorbed into the usa . i do not accept the idea that the usa has an obligation to accept any particular number or group of legal immigrants . ------- arthur

[Froufrou]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">i do not accept the idea that the usa has an obligation to accept any particular number or group of legal immigrants .[/QUOTE]

And I've been criticized for suggesting a look at a modified isolationist policy.

[arthur]

please elaborate , what are your thoughts on a modified isolationist policy ? and ----- what would be the criticism [if any] of my view on legal immigration ?

[Der Alte]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">. Could we revoke previous laws – posse commitatus – and use the U.S. Army for this task? Reserves?
[/QUOTE]Excuse me but a little research would have easily answered this question for the writer. The Posse Commitatus Act was designed to keep the government from using the Army (hence the Air Force) from enforcing Civil Law, thus limiting the governments power. The Navy is not covered by Posse Commitatus and were used during the 60s to search for the civil rights persons who were murdered. Also, I don't consider sealing the borders from this illegal invasion as enforcing Civil Law - they would be protecting the country. In addition I believe the use of the National Guard by the individual states would also be exempt from the PC Act.

[jackbenimble]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">like i've said in the past , illegal immigration should be stopped and legal immigration should be limited to a number that is good for the usa and that can be absorbed into the usa . i do not accept the idea that the usa has an obligation to accept any particular number or group of legal immigrants .[/QUOTE]

I think the argument will be over the number that is good. There are sharp differences of opinion on what number that should be.

Currently, we let in just under a million legal immigrants per year. Additionally we let in a couple hundred thousand guestworkers most of whom actually leave.

According to John McCain and Teddy Kennedy, &quot;the realities of our economy&quot; necessitate that we let in an additional 400,000 low skilled immigrants per year who will come as guestworkers but all of whom will be eligible to adjust their status to permanent resident and then eventually citizen.

President Bush apparently thinks the correct number to &quot;meet the needs of our economy&quot; is unlimited just so long as there was a willing employer. I'm not certain but I suspect we are going to see the Cornyn-Kyl bill codify the &quot;unlimited&quot; approach. Under this plan most guests would (har, har, har) be required to leave.

If you ask me, there are other things to consider besides &quot;the realities of our economy&quot; like our ability to assimulate them. Our ability to educate them without jepardizing the education we provide to our own children. The impacts on taxes, our poor and our middle class. And the population situation we want to pass onto our children.

I would personally like to see illegal immigration terminated and legal immigration sharply lowered. At current legal levels of immigration our population is headed for 450 million by 2050 and 1 billion by 2100. I don't think that America will be near as nice when it has 1 billion people. Why would we do that to our children? Lets stabilize our population and restructure the government programs and spending that depend on the ponzi scheme of endless population growth.

Regards,
Jack

[Froufrou]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Lets stabilize our population and restructure the government programs and spending that depend on the ponzi scheme of endless population growth.
[/QUOTE]

Jack, I like the way you think, but you already know that. The question that Terri always asks us is, &quot;how do we get there from here?&quot; I kinda liked ncfm's idea about a tit for tat approach, and the logic DOES follow...

arthur - isolationism I've suggested was limited to JUST sealing the borders. Step two would involve de-immigrating illegals.

There are several more knowledgeable persons here who have pointed out why that's not a good idea...but of course I have forgotten why. Jack?

[arthur]

my thoughts would be to clamp down on employers and that could be done very easily . if you go after the illegals employers you wouldn't even need to watch northerly traffic at the borders because most of the traffic would be southerly back to mexico and other south american countries . if a illegal guy can't get work or get services then he can't eat or pay for his pickup truck and other obligations and he would self identify himself . --- he would then be dependent on the churches and other sources of charity and in my opinion those sources would not last very long !! illegals would leave voluntarily because they could not survive if the current laws about employing illegals were enforced . -------- of course these things will not happen but that is what i'd like to see ! ------- arthur

[kirkconservative]

arthur, I totally agree. Between clamping down on those that employ illegals and making it harder to cross the border, the illegals with eventually leave. I think one key would be to do it slowly. This would allow companies time to adjust and by setting a few examples companies would stop hiring illegals by themselves.
The reason I say to do it slowly is because of the operation Vanguard experience in Nebraska. The INS started a massive sweep of meat packing plants. There was so much backlash from meatpacking companies that the experiment was never repeated.

[Der Alte]

I'll go along with &quot;slowly&quot;, especially since thats better than not at all and make sure the companies are fined $10,000 for each illegal - that way they will find that Americans can and will do the job if paid a living wage.

[Old Man]

I don't like the fines too much since the company officials don't pay them, we do. They are passed on to us in prices. I would be more in favor of &quot;jail time&quot; for the officials that hire illegals. If there are going to be fines, then I think they should come from personal funds and not company funds.

[arthur]

jail time , sure ----- fines from personal funds , sure --- ok with me . of course i think that would only work on small family owned businesses that do construction or roofing and the like . i mean , who owns ford or cheby or some of the huge hotel chains ? who owns the meat packing chains and who owns the corporate farms . ----- put some businesses out of business if they break the laws . fine the large hotels and meat packers huge amounts and let them worry about where the money comes from . sure they would try to recoup losses through the consumer but the consumer does not need to buy from that - particular - hotel or meat packer . if one hotel or meat packers product is too expensixe the consumer can go elsewhere . ----- do the crackdown on one particular company - slowly - one at a time as is suggested by der alte . when h-rmel sees whats being done to arm-ur they would get the message . ------- arthur

[Old Man]

Except for even large hotel chains, you are only talking pennies on a room rate to handle the fines. Most people wouldn't even know they were paying $10,000 fines for even 100 employees.

For example Mariott hotels (MAR) has over 10 billion in revenue. Even a million dollar fine would only be .0001 of their revenue.

If they took it off their dividend, it would be taking 1/2 of one cent off the $1.32 dividend they pay each year.

So, do you really think it will have any affect either passing the cost on to he consumer or to the shareholders? They would just work harder to not get caught. They would &quot;contract&quot; with another business and claim no knowledge of the illegal activity.

I doubt anything short of jail time will work. Some mom and pop businesses trying to compete with the big guys would get run out and that would just leave more market for the big guys. It isn't that I don't want them punished. It is that I don't want the big guys getting even more of the share of the business by being able to &quot;cover their losses&quot; if caught.

[arthur]

old man : it's ok with me , jail time is alright ! then again , make the fines huge and if companies work harder to avoid getting caught then that alone should provide criminals either on a high or low level of management to be thrown in jail . i think that if people work harder to break the law then that means that they conspire to break laws and that alone means that they are breaking the law ! make the heads of some of these human resource departments do a little bit of quivering in their boots . -------- heck , i'd love to go after some high end goverment civil servants and throw them in jail . government from the top down is the real aiders and abettors of the illegal alien problem in the usa anyway . ----- arthur