IMMIGRATION: Chill out!!! [Archive]

GroovyLady

05-07-2006, 08:14 PM

Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060506/ap_on_re_us/cowboys_for_compromi se)

Both sides of the aisle are using us, the voters, to take the focus off of immigration and turn this very important issue into yet another partisian poll attack.

I know people don't like the word "compromise"; but, hey, the bottom line is that's the only way an immigration bill that's enforceable and affordable is going to happen.

people in the west, mid-west and southwest are focused on Mexican immigration. *people in the east and northeast are focused on high tech visas, south americans, chinese, eastern europeans, jamaicans, russians, mid-east muslims etc.

people in the west, mid-west and southwest need farm and ranch help. *if us americans were willing to do the jobs available in the farming and ranching industries we would be doing them. *however, the labor pool of people willing to do heavy manual work on a farm or ranch for min. wage is extremely small. *additionally, we as Americans will have to be be willing to spend 20x more for produce, dairy and meat to pay the wages and benefits for American workers in these businesses. *

in the north and northeast the illegal immigrant labor force satisfies the demand for primarily construction workers, food service and domestic care. *it's not there aren't people or people who are not willing to do these jobs. *also, in the liberal northeast it's not unusual for parents to raise their children to believe they're "above" manual labor or status disadvantaged jobs. *hence, the kids don't grow up doing the manual labor "chores" like cleaning rooms, mowing lawn etc.

many non-farm, non-ranch type of jobs can easily be done by Americans. *In fact, there are independently owned nanny, house keeping, lawn mowing etc. services. so, the question is why do the people who hire illegal immigrants for this type of work do NOT hire American businesses.

the argument about illegal immigrants depressing wages is valid. *the HB-1 visas or whatever they are called for technical skilled workers depress wages for educated, skilled American workers. *we have millions of underemployed computer programmers, technicians etc.

Amnesty is not an option. *Building a wall is stupid. *Making illegal immigrants pay fines and back taxes does nothing except motivate illegal immigrants to remain illegal.

I don't think the federal government should install any sort of immigrant quota system. *And, I don't think illegal immigrants should have to pay a fine with money they don't have anyway. *Increasing the amount of HB-1 (or whatever they're called) visas is killing decent paying job opportunities for American tech. workers.

OK, so, in terms of addressing the work needs; IMO, that chould be handled at the state level. *In other words, if farmers and ranchers need help, they can submit a work order to their state government. *It will then be the State's responsibility to get the workers documented and ID'd and it would make tracking the employer's who hire them much easier for tax purposes.

Here in the northeast the labor market is controlled by unions. *Labor Unions are promoting illegal immigration so they can get more people into their unions to increase their political power. *However, while the service employees union admits to having illegal immigrants as members; construction worker *unions aren't so generous. *Construction workers see exactly what happens to their wages when illegal immigrants start working en masse. *

Aspiring actresses and women in a jam can't get jobs in the domestic care or service markets because it's cheaper for people to hire illegal immigrants and not pay taxes for them. *However, again, i think the need for immigrant labor can be determined by the state. *If American owned businesses need to hire immigrant labor they can submit a work order to the state government.

State government issued documentation wouldn't be permanent and in fact could have an expiration date. *

In terms of people already here; hey, they broke the law. *I don't think it should be a felony; but, misdemeanor at least. *Paying back taxes is a joke because most illegal immigrants don't make enough money to pay taxes. *But, I think the burden of support for immigrant "temporary workers" should be on the state; not the federal government.

And, how is it non-American citizen kids can go to public elementary and high schools? *I think mandating citizenship for kids in public schools is reasonable. *The kids shouldn't have to pay for their parent's idiocy.

Terri

05-07-2006, 08:31 PM

I'll start with the easy one. Like so many things that are wrong in this country the children of illegal aliens are entitled to attend our schools because of the courts.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Plyler V. Doe (http://www.bookrags.com/history/multiculturalism/plyler-v-doe-uimr-05/)

Excerpt from U.S. Supreme Court trial of 1982

Opinion written by U.S. Supreme Court justice William J. Brennan on June 15, 1982

The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the children of illegal immigrants had the same rights as everyone else, especially the right to an education

"By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation."

In 1977, children of illegal immigrants were not allowed to attend school in Texas without paying tuition, a fee paid to attend a school. Nearly none could afford the tuition. Five years later, in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas could not deny the children of illegal immigrants a public education. The case, called Plyler v. Doe, found that depriving children of a basic education would mark them for life, through no fault of their own. They were living in Texas, and that fact gave them the right to an education, just as every other child living in the state had a right to attend public school.

[/QUOTE]

papajaxxx

05-07-2006, 08:41 PM

I'm a very loving and caring person. I want only the best for those from Mexico who are illegal. But, illegal immigration is not the answer. On the surface it appears good, but it only disguises the real problems. And, the real problem is Mexico and it's leaders, or I should say, "lack of leaders."

For those who think we need these immigrant workers, they are wrong. America has enough workers, or "legal immigrants" to meet it's economic demands.

Build the fence, enforce the immigration laws, and take only the legal immigrants, and in the final tally, more problems will be solved than caused in both the U.S. and Mexico.

Politically correct? No!

Best for all concerned? Yes!

Just my humble opinion.

RealDeal

05-07-2006, 08:56 PM

State rules and pays for inforcement...

Couple thoughts:

1) It's not the role of the states to defend the federal borders, but it IS the job of the feds to do so.

2) We have been footing the bill for a very long time and the bill keeps increasing due to the inaction of the FEDERAL govt...see above.

I have a bunch of other thoughts too, but I have expressed most of them on other threads...whew! exhausted!

GroovyLady

05-07-2006, 09:24 PM

Terri, thank you for posting up the court case. *If you hadn't; I'm not sure I'd believe it. *The thing is, I'm not sure anyone wants the kids to be "denied" an education. *But, parents who don't secure legal status for their children are the problem. *I mean, that's borderline negligence, IMO.

Pappajax, I do agree that at the end of the day when the sun sets over the Hudson River it's Mexcio's government that needs changing. *However, given the rise of the neo-Marxist's popularity and the Zapatistas (sp?) I don't think the Mexican government is changing anytime soon. *

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Thousands of riot police firing tear gas forced their way into a rebellious town near Mexico City on Thursday and freed fellow officers taken hostage in a riot that left one person dead.

Scores of police in body armor swept into the fractious farming town of San Salvador Atenco, 15 miles north of Mexico City, and hauled off bleeding protesters amid peasants armed with sticks, machetes and gasoline bombs.[/QUOTE]

Reuters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060505/wl_nm/mexico_riot_dc_5&printer=1;_ylt=AoXqw z9VKmvrintmFHNS7xRn. 3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN 1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">The municipality of Atenco, near Mexico City, is under a state of siege, occupied by hundreds of Federal Preventative Police who are ransacking homes throughout the community. The problem started on Wednesday, May 3, when flower vendors from Atenco attempted to sell flowers in the nearby community of Texcoco at the site of a planned WalMart megamall. Police brutally displaced the vendors, beating several people in the process. In response, the Atenco-based Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra (FPDT) mobilized protests, which were in turn brutally repressed by police. News reports indicate police killed at least two Atenco residents, including a 14-year-old boy, and at least 42 are injured, three of them critically. Governor Enrique Pena Nieto reported 50 police injured and at least 100 arrests. At least eleven police were detained by Atenco residents who demanded an end to police repression and the release of prisoners in exchange for the release of the detained police. During the early morning hours of Thursday, Federal Preventative Police entered Atenco, declared a state of siege, and began a house to house search for the detained police, wreaking havoc in the community and beating Atenco residents in the process.
[/QUOTE]

UN Observer (http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=2315&blz=1)

so, overall, getting Plyler v. Doe overturned looks to be the "easy one".

As the cowboy in the Yahoo article I posted up said, "show me a 50 foot wall and I'll show you a 55 foot ladder". *Illegal immigrants are already cutting through fences ranchers have up for the cattle. *This is private property. *Now, this also brings up a point about Federal police action on private property.

And, again, I think you're thinking of illegal immigration in terms of exclusively Mexican. *It's not. *Just last week police picked up a Jamaican criminal here in NYC who had already been deported once before. *He burned off his finger prints and got back into our country - ON A PLANE.

Most of the illegal immigrants in the northeast arrive by plane. *And, we have quite alot. *So much in fact that our own Mayor Bloomberg has an established "don't ask, don't tell". *For the most part it works. *People come to NYC for good paying jobs because there's good paying jobs here. *However, the unions have started to get their hands into the illegal immigrant labor market here. *That's just a situation that's advisable not to ignore.

I agree Americans will do alot of the work that's being done by illegal immigrants. *However, I really believe we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot in our farming and cattle industries if we didn't allow them the low wage workers they need. *I mean, these are cattle ranchers we're talking about, not Rockefellers.

Also, have you figured out a way to enforce the law on Mr. & Mrs. Suburb who hire illegal immigrants to clean their house and landscape their lawn or Mr. and Ms. Big City who hire illegal immigrants to be nannies for their kids? *

I mean, yeah, I'd pay money to see an FBI raid on a well to do suburb. *But, not sure how effective that would be in the long term.

Terri

05-07-2006, 09:38 PM

When I said the court case was the "easy one", I didn't mean it would be easy to overturn. I don't believe it will be.

I meant it was the quickest and easiest point of your argument to rebut.

Also, I'm not sure why you would find it hard to believe. The courts are the one branch of government that have done the most harm to this country. That's why it was so important to get some constructionists on the Supreme Court. I wish we could have gotten three but the two we did get should help a lot.

GroovyLady

05-07-2006, 09:54 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">When I said the court case was the "easy one", I didn't mean it would be easy to overturn. I don't believe it will be. [/QUOTE]

oh, i know what you meant. what i was trying to say is that compared to determing a sane, enforceable and affordable immigration policy for the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in our country as well as for the future; getting that court case overturned is comparatively easy.

Engineer Scott

05-08-2006, 12:19 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">additionally, we as Americans will have to be be willing to spend 20x more for produce, dairy and meat to pay the wages and benefits for American workers in these businesses. [/QUOTE]

Harvesting is something like 4% of the cost. Double the harvesters' wages and it would be at best an 8% increase.

Scotty

jackbenimble

05-08-2006, 12:29 PM

Just more shilling from the agricultural wing of the cheap labor lobby. I guess they think that if they call them cowboys they will be more believable.

I didn't see any of these cowboys offering to pick up health insurance for their cheap imported labor. I guess they want us to continue picking up that tab. What is it about country people that makes them think that their lifestyle should be subsidized?

Regards,
Jack

arthur

05-08-2006, 02:49 PM

just some easy numbers , an 8 - 10 per cent increase to eat american picked or processed food rather then having them picked and processed by illegals makes sense to me .

GroovyLady

05-08-2006, 03:33 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Harvesting is something like 4% of the cost. *Double the harvesters' wages and it would be at best an 8% increase.[/QUOTE]

really? *only 8%? *i was under the impression it would cost alot more. *hmmmm.

i can't knock farmers and ranchers. *they have it rough. *well, at least to my comfy high rise NYC office with a UN/East River view tush they do. *and, if their cattle or crops gets wiped out; that's harsh - really harsh. *

besides, if anyone wants to get miffed about tax dollars being used to underwrite someone's lifestyle, don't overlook the "public" beaches in California. *Federal and State money gets used to keep the beaches up so the people who own the houses on the beach don't have to. *same thing with wine grape growers and salmon farmers.

in terms of national security, we do need to be able to produce enough food to feed ourselves; lest we become dependant on a foreign source for food.
on the other hand, i can just hear the liberals now yammering for a 8% increase in welfare benefits for "poor" people to compensate for the 8% rise in food due to increased "harvesting" costs.

interesting, as a northeast big city gal i don't know a darn thing about farming or ranching so i guess i'm more inclined to believe these businesses have an intrinsic need for cheap labor to keep the final retail prices down. *

however, as a big city gal i know for certain we don't need illegal immigrant labor in the northeast to clean houses, raise children, build buildings/houses and mow lawns. *nor do we need immigrant labor to program computers and fix copy machines.

Maybe each state's Governor could submit an "immigrant work" request to Congress once a year? *This way Congress could review how the labor needs of businesses meet American employment demand.

slapping fines on illegal immigrants who are already here is only going to motivate them to remain illegal. *they're not going to pay a $1,000 fine or back taxes; especially since they know they won't get deported.

i dunno, i still think getting the kids of illegal immigrants who are in public schools and on social services legitimately documented would be a politically "safe" first step. *why wouldn't parents want their children to be legal American citizens? *that might be a question school administrators need to start asking more often. *

the whole "catch and release" process is dumb. *i mean, what's the point of telling someone who's here illegally and gets busted to show up at court next Tuesday and then let them go?

maybe if we put INS work centers AT THE BORDER instead of a wall that would make it alot easier for people immigrating from Mexico to get their papers and legal documents first. *also, they would be able to get matched up with a job before arriving in country. special non-driver State ID's could be issued to the immigrant's in whatever state they are.

however, the Mexican border problem is only one aspect of immigration. *there are millions of illegal immigrants who fly to New York, Chicago, Boston, Newark, Los Angeles on a tourist visa; get an off the books job; get an apartment and stay, have children etc. *there's people who have been previously deported who fly right back into our country and set up shop again with no problem. *IMO, these people, the people who have been deported, then come back in country again illegally - that should be a felony. *But, then, we, the taxpayers, end up paying the costs of incarceration. *And, how does the government tell an Irish or Jamaican single mother that while her kids were born here and are American; she's breaking the law?

Folks, this is a very complex issue. *I've been saying for awhile that the Mexican border/immigrant issue should be separated out from the rest of the immigration issues. *No way can an illegal immigrant from Mexico be in the same camp as an illegal immigrant from Ireland, China, South America, Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa, W. Indies, Russia, Turkey, etc.

People who illegally immigrate here from Mexico are doing it more often than not for money. *People from other countries who illegally immigrate here have a whole laundry list of reasons why. *Not the least of which is political/religious asylum. *Kind of hard for America to tell an illegal Chinese immigrant they have to go back to a communist country that doesn't respect basic human rights and freedom.

ps - folks, please really consider about immigrant labor for farming and ranching. yes, americans can do those jobs for higher wages and better benefits. however, the second americans start doing the farming, ranching jobs is the second LABOR UNIONS will be organizing the farm and ranch workers. we've all seen what happened to GM and the American auto industry. at GM it costs an average of $67/hour to employ one auto union worker.

Ben_Colder

05-08-2006, 03:43 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Pappajax, I do agree that at the end of the day when the sun sets over the Hudson River it's Mexcio's government that needs changing. *However, given the rise of the neo-Marxist's popularity and the Zapatistas (sp?) I don't think the Mexican government is changing anytime soon. *

[/QUOTE]

Mexico will never change. My wife left Mexico in the early 1950's because of the corruption, lack of jobs and the crime rate. She returned to her place of birth in Oklahoma after many years in Mexico. Mexico is the same or worse today.

RealDeal

05-08-2006, 03:45 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">interesting, as a northeast big city gal i don't know a darn thing about farming or ranching so i guess i'm more inclined to believe these businesses have an intrinsic need for cheap labor to keep the final retail prices down. *

however, as a big city gal i know for certain we don't need illegal immigrant labor in the northeast to clean houses, raise children, build buildings/houses and mow lawns. *nor do we need immigrant labor to program computers and fix copy machines.
[/QUOTE]

Why not? It's the same thing...the cost of services/products.

I am a big city gal too, but prices is prices...

If you can save money of fixing your copier, then the cost savings will be passed on: to the consumer making you a better cometitor in your market, or your employees in the form of benefits, or may just keep you from going under altogether, depending on your situation.

It's no different for these ranchers, or whomever claims to "need" illegal workers. They're only saving money cuz the rest of us are footing the bill. There is no justifying it.

GroovyLady

05-08-2006, 03:59 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">It's no different for these ranchers, or whomever claims to "need" illegal workers. They're only saving money cuz the rest of us are footing the bill. There is no justifying it. [/QUOTE]

except that farmers and ranchers are in the business of product. nannies, housekeepers, lawnscapers and people who fix office machines are in the business of service. same thing with cashiers and waitresses. they're all service oriented jobs.

farming and ranching is all about the product.

John Tischler

05-08-2006, 04:28 PM

Lot's of good info here. Thank all of you for the "education."

Now, let's end the "occupation" of Texas from Vicente Fox's "spare" people.

I know where my vote is going!

John Tischler
Dallas, TX (currently under Mexican occupation) 75244

GroovyLady

05-08-2006, 04:35 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Now, let's end the "occupation" of Texas from Vicente Fox's "spare" people.[/QUOTE]

Yup. Folks, can we agree to split Immigration into Two Parts.

Part One - Mexico, Canada & Borders
Part Two - Everyplace else

Immigration is just to huge, IMO.

RealDeal

05-08-2006, 05:40 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">except that farmers and ranchers are in the business of product. *nannies, housekeepers, lawnscapers and people who fix office machines are in the business of service. *same thing with cashiers and waitresses. *they're all service oriented jobs.

farming and ranching is all about the product.
[/QUOTE]

I am not getting the distinction, G-L, services can relate to product cost...programmers, copy machine techs, etc...even nanny's and landscapers...I'm sure there are home offices even in your big city. All of these costs get passed on to the consumer in the price of products, just at a different level than the producer of the product...same diff.

and you think ranchers don't hire nanny's...you must be too young to remember "Dallas"...lol.. .

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

edited protion:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Yup. Folks, can we agree to split Immigration into Two Parts.

Part One - Mexico, Canada & Borders
Part Two - Everyplace else
[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with this at all. I make no distiction whatsoever between illegals from any country, and to do so is ludicrous, IMO.

I am for this: if you hire an illegal, first offense, you lose all your property, just like drug traffickers.

That's my solution, whether you be a homeowner hiring a gardener or a ranch hiring a ranch-hand, or a factory hiring a line worker...BOOM GONE!! Property to be auctioned off at next Fed. public auction...how bout that?

jackbenimble

05-08-2006, 06:06 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">If you can save money of fixing your copier, then the cost savings will be passed on: to the consumer making you a better cometitor in your market, or your employees in the form of benefits, or may just keep you from going under altogether, depending on your situation.
[/QUOTE]

Or you can just stick the money in your pocket as extra profits. In many cases that is what is happening with illegal immigration. Employers are making fat profits by breaking the law.

Elsewhere in the forum I posted a thread today about declining real wages. More and more sectors of our econmomy are being colonized by illegals and the Americans that are trying to make a living in these jobs are experiencing a lower standard of living because of the declining wages. But has anybody noticed hotel rooms getting cheaper? How about restaurant meals? How about construction and housing?

The lower wages are not being passed on to consumers. Instead the businesses are pocketing the profits. Prices charged are independent of the costs of the inputs. That's basic economics. Instead prices are set by supply and demand.

Regards,
Jack

RealDeal

05-08-2006, 06:19 PM

You are exactly right Jack...I only was addressing this avenue as that it was being stated that the "poor ranchers/farmers" have to resort to this to keep their propduct prices down...

And your other article...read it, very good.

arthur

05-08-2006, 06:28 PM

can't say anything to add to your post - real deal - your reasoning is exactly my reasoning !! splitting groups up and making them different only adds to the confusion . i know illegals from south of the border that feel justified in illegal entry because - cubans - can claim asylum and they can't . ----- besides that the numbers of any illegal that might achieve legal citizenship is also a concern of mine !! ------- whats the sense of overcrowding this country ?? thats a serious question , why would anyone want an overcrowded country ?? ------- hiring illegals should be a crime with heavy punishment . well publicised loss of property , jail , fines and media coverage plus public service messages would put a stop to most people hioring illegals !!

arthur

05-08-2006, 06:33 PM

john tischler : i think that i know where your vote is going therefore i like you post , i think !! http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

arthur

05-08-2006, 06:47 PM

excellent point jack , hotel room prices in the nicer big name los angeles airport hotels are only going up and they raise them anytime they get a chance . restaraunt prices are not getting any cheaper either from what i see . never really thought about it but yeah , lower prices aren't being passed on to the consumer . course lower prices would not justify hordes of illegals , for me anyway !!

Speedway

05-08-2006, 07:03 PM

I had some thoughts today regarding "jobs Americans won't do." *This is as good a thread as any in which to post them.

We've gone through this before. *I'm not sure why it took me this long to put my finger on it. *From the beginning, we've had "jobs Americans won't do." *What were the jobs?

Large production farms particularly in the south (even though families had 10 to 20 children each) could not keep up with the labor demands of plantation life. *So we started a system of what I'll call "illegal immigration" just because that's what we call it now.

There was some difference to be sure. *People were brought here completely against their will and forced to do the "jobs American's won't do." *Or we can phrase that another way. *It was to do the "jobs Americans wouldn't pay to have done."

Eventually we came to our senses and realized that this just was not right. *We stopped this forced immigration and turned the people who'd already been brought here into free Americans.

Many of them no longer wanted to do the "jobs Americans wouldn't do." *But a lot ended up being tennant farmers. *But that happened to other Americans as well. *My parents were tennant farmers for a while.

So here we are still today having "jobs American's won't do." *Some think that the only answer for these jobs is to have illegal immigrants. *But here's where I keep going in circles. *The only people who will do these jobs are "illegal immigrants." *So if we make it legal for them to be here, does that mean they will no longer do these jobs for these low wages. *I mean if they're here legally, won't they want to compete for higher paying jobs? *Won't they want to become Americans? *Then THEY won't want to do the "jobs that Americans won't do."

I say send them home. *If the businesses that have "jobs that American's won't do" fail, then let them fail. *If it means we all have to raise our own food, so be it. *We cannot fit every human being on the planet into this country! *It has to stop somewhere.

If nothing else, think about the fact that we are really treating the current "illegal immigrant" in little better fashion than we did the slave labor in prior centuries. *They won't want to be "our slave labor" forever!

GeorgiaRedneck

05-08-2006, 09:32 PM

Speedway,

If it's all that simple (and it IS) why can't the OBL figure it out?

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/beer.gif

RealDeal

05-08-2006, 09:49 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">The only people who will do these jobs are "illegal immigrants." *So if we make it legal for them to be here, does that mean they will no longer do these jobs for these low wages. *I mean if they're here legally, won't they want to compete for higher paying jobs? *Won't they want to become Americans? *Then THEY won't want to do the "jobs that Americans won't do."
[/QUOTE]

Yes. And (IMO) the only way to combat this "need" for illegal (cheap, to the employer) workers is to get rid of minimum wage, and some of the benefits that have priced American workers out of the market.

Also, get rid of the social programs (entitlements) that give incentive to sit on a fanny at home rather than "whatever you must" to provide for yourself.

Back before the socialist system, these jobs would have been filled by Americans.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

I still say that because of the (true) cost of illegal alien labor to our society we should recoup it by confiscating the employers' property.

Old Man

05-08-2006, 09:58 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">The only people who will do these jobs are "illegal immigrants." [/QUOTE]

Actually there are legal immigrants that have done these jobs. There have been some problems with getting enough of them here legally and that started a trend of getting the extra ones needed illegally. But, the problem is many faceted.

For example, the labor picking is part time, In one field one day in another farms field a day later. Do they pay by the hour or the bushel? Even if they are legal and American, how do you make it desireable for most Americans since they don't live where the work is. We can't even get them to come from 7% unemployment areas to here where there is a labor shortage.

We have to secure the border, make it possible for a legal immigrant to come and work and stop exempting agriculture from minimum wage. However, since it is part time work, it will still be work without benefits and they will still have to move from state to state as different crops ripen. For example Cherries in Michigan is summer and apples are fall crops. They have to move as the harvesting moves.

It is a difficult life and one that most Americans wouldn't do for $20 an hour because they don't want to be away from their family following the harvest patterns working for a different employer each week or so. We need more mechanical picking as Jack as suggested but we need the border secure.

Separate immigration but not by the people. Make enforcement the top priority and pass the House Bill which FAIR email alert today says is overwhelming supported and that is the enforcement bill. Then go after the Democrats on the rest but get that much first.

lance sjogren

05-08-2006, 11:45 PM

In regard to this comment:

"Also, have you figured out a way to enforce the law on Mr. & Mrs. Suburb who hire illegal immigrants to clean their house and landscape their lawn or Mr. and Ms. Big City who hire illegal immigrants to be nannies for their kids? "

I believe this can be solved by cultural methods.

If we can get it to where it is widely considered a shameful act (which it should be) for a person to hire an illegal alien for domestic work, then many less people will do it because they won't want to be social outcasts.

lance sjogren

05-08-2006, 11:50 PM

"The only people who will do these jobs are "illegal immigrants." So if we make it legal for them to be here, does that mean they will no longer do these jobs for these low wages. I mean if they're here legally, won't they want to compete for higher paying jobs? Won't they want to become Americans? Then THEY won't want to do the "jobs that Americans won't do."

Jay Leno made this exact point in a joke he told a few weeks ago. It went something like:

"The politicians say we need to give illegal aliens a path to becoming Americans because they "do the jobs Americans won't do". But once they become Americans, who's going to do those jobs?"

(I think he told it in a little better form but that's the gist of it.)

lance sjogren

05-08-2006, 11:55 PM

Actually, that's one of the biggest holes in the open borders argument.

They say we need illegals to do these degrading jobs.

And so we argue that the labor glut created by the illegals in the job market is precisely what has caused those jobs to become degrading ones.

(any job can be a dignified one if it pays a fair wage and the working conditions are humane)

So then they say, well, if we legalize the illegals then they can demand better wages and working conditions.

But the justification for having the illegals here in the first place is to perform the jobs that are too degrading for Americans to perform.

Thus, the argument for open borders is based on circular logic.

lance sjogren

05-08-2006, 11:58 PM

You know, if Bush and his ilk were smart, they would say we need illegal aliens to do the jobs that "there are not enough Americans to do" rather than jobs that "Americans won't do".

That way they could still make the same claim without insulting the American people.

Those kind of insults against the American people are no doubt one reason Bush's public approval rating is so low.

GeorgiaRedneck

05-09-2006, 02:51 AM

I've got to agree with you, Lance. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Those kind of insults against the American people are no doubt one reason Bush's public approval rating is so low.[/QUOTE]

I'd like that (Personal Mod Edit) FOOL to come see firsthand the jobs Americans WILL DO, if paid enough to feed their families. I, as an American citizen, capable and willing to work as hard as ANYONE, should not have to live 20 to a house to pay the note. If that's the definition of 'Compassionate Conservatism', NO THANK YOU!

GroovyLady

05-10-2006, 03:34 PM

OK, maybe as OM suggested split the Immigration bill into two parts

A. *Enforcement (borders & terminals)
B. *People (work, asylum, etc.)

There's no magic wand here folks. *There's 12-20 million illegal immigrants from ALL OVER THE WORLD living here right now. *There's millions more who want to get in (even though, according to the UN, the majority of the world hates us).

We can focus and get the immigration bill "right"; or, we can do what we have done in the past and slam through a band-aid bill that's only going to have to get re-visited again in another 10 years.

Maybe agriculture, construction businesses and ranchers need to invest more into their "human resources departments" and be more pro-active and professional in their approach to hiring rather than the seemingly haphazard way happening now. *I happen to think many of those jobs could be done by Americans who are "difficult to hire" (i.e. people who have "a record" for non-violent offenses).

Here in the Northeast and other places that rely heavily on illegal immigrants for non-skilled service jobs such as domestic help and restaurant kitchen aides there's no reason why temporary work agencies can't be set up the same way as temp agencies are set up for office "labor". *That's one way to ensure the people hired are documented and employers are paying the taxes. *

Also, as Lance mentioned, creating a culture that makes social outcasts of those who hire illegal immigrants would cut down demand in the suburbs and big cities for illegal immigrant domestic "help". This would encourage Mr. & Mrs. Suburb and Mr. & Ms. Big City to use the temp. agencies to hire domestic workers. *It would be the "socially responsible" to do so. * http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif *and, knowing NYC, it would only be a short time before everyone figured out which agency paid the best wage to get the best workers - the "market" determining what qualifies as "best" worker.

In the meantime, everyone who's here illegally right now should take the hit and get slapped with a misdemeanor. *non-negotiable. *I think there's more illegal immigrants willing to get a misdemeanor than there are willing to pay $1,000. *Besides, getting nailed with a misdemeanor hammers home the concept of LAW. *Paying $1,000 hammers home the concept the law can be bought.

Speedway

05-10-2006, 03:49 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">In the meantime, everyone who's here illegally right now should take the hit and get slapped with a misdemeanor. non-negotiable. I think there's more illegal immigrants willing to get a misdemeanor than there are willing to pay $1,000. Besides, getting nailed with a misdemeanor hammers home the concept of LAW. Paying $1,000 hammers home the concept the law can be bought.
[/QUOTE]

Without a punishment, the hammer is made of paper! Of course they'd like to get an advance to go and stay out of jail free card! What criminal wouldn't?

pratt65

05-10-2006, 08:20 PM

WASHINGTON -- What was to have been a simple renewal of the historic Voting Rights Act has become snarled in the heated debate involving immigration issues.

Conservative House members tried on Wednesday to end a requirement in the 1965 law that bilingual ballots and interpreters be provided in states and counties where large numbers of citizens speak limited English.

The House Judiciary Committee rejected the effort.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said voting in English should pose no problem for any U.S. citizen.

More (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VOTING_RIGHTS?SITE=V ASTR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Seems to us, that all of Washington cares more about Foreigners and illegals than Americans. Passing this bill may have also stopped alot of voter fraud.

pratt65

05-10-2006, 08:24 PM

Illegals are coming over the border at record numbers, because they figure they are going to get amnesty. The only way to stop this Now is to pass the bill on Immigration the house passed in Dec. It needs to be a felony to come into this country illegally. It is the Only way to put a stop to it. Take the jobs away and slowly but surely they will go home on there own. Then we won't have to spend millions on the borders or for all the benefits taxpayers are paying fot them.

Democrats want to raise the minium wage, I think if they do that, more and more americans will be laid off and more immigrants and illegals hired. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag4.gif

Terri

05-10-2006, 08:34 PM

Pratt, would you please click the edit button on your post with the article and bring it into compliance with GOPUSA copyright guidelines.

It needs to be shortened and linked.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">5. GOPUSA respects U.S. copyright laws. A small portion of copyrighted articles may be posted for the purpose of discussion. Please limit those postings to 100-150 words and provide a link to the original article. Credit the author and publication in your post. Use the title of the article as it appears at the originating site. [/QUOTE]

Thanks!

SaraConr

05-10-2006, 08:59 PM

Does this mean that ballots are available in Korean, Vietnamese and Creole for the large number of Korean, Vietnamese and Haitian immigrants who might want a ballot in their native languages?

GeorgiaRedneck

05-10-2006, 09:10 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Does this mean that ballots are available in Korean, Vietnamese and Creole for the large number of Korean, Vietnamese and Haitian immigrants who might want a ballot in their native languages?[/QUOTE]

ONLY if their percentage of population is HIGH enough in the particular state they're in.

English only is the way to go. Our states spend BILLIONS on this crappola, for WHAT? To make someone feel GOOD about non-assimilation? Learn the language! It's the ONLY one we need!

GroovyLady

05-10-2006, 09:20 PM

c'mon folks - lets think! we can come up something a lot more sane than the basket cases in the beltway.

[i can't believe ballots are in Spanish. how long will it be before they're in Arabic and Mandarin?] (breathe...breathe.. .)

how about illegal immigration as a misdemeanor for the first two offenses; felony + deportation for the third illegal immigration offense?

illegal immigrants live in an "underground" economy right now; negative reinforcement will only encourage them to stay there. the threat of felony will have the same effect as the threat of deportation. it would send illegal immigrants deeper into the shadows of our society thus creating an even larger gap that would continue to separate our country while growing the underground economy at the expense of the "topside" economy.

like it or not, in order for us to effectively manage the situation; illegal immigrants have to get "topside".

misdemeanor + fingerprinted/photo + Federal immigrant ID w/ an ID number.

IMO, liberals backed us into the corner with this one. Illegals can send their kids to school, go to college, get welfare benefits, work and drive. And, lets not kid ourselves, there's a darn good probability they're voting too.

So, what is within the power and range of the REAL republican politicians in the beltway to do? Figure there's 10-15 RINOS in Congress another 7 in the Senate.

What is something they can do tomorrow?

GOP TEAM GO!!! http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

GroovyLady

05-10-2006, 09:54 PM

OK - one angle I guess to play would be the Zapatista movement going on in Mexico right now. However, this Marxist like movement only talks trash about us; to the best of my knowledge they haven't acted against American interests.

Wikipedia-Mexican Zapatistas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista)

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">What is particular about the Zapatismo ideology is that it is a historical conflict against the trans-historical oppressor of the indigenous of Mexico; altogether the marginalized people of the world. This historical oppressor has been described as the colonial Spaniard, the nineteenth century British and the post-cold war, neo-liberal United States. The Zapatista worldview adopts a position of humanity versus neoliberalism. The Zapatistas believe that the United States market dehumanizes people. It is a concentration of wealth-crimes against humanity.

The movement started in southern Mexico, in the state of Chiapas. It remains most popular with the poor indigenous peoples of that area. It appeared shortly after (and in response to) the signing of NAFTA - the North American Free Trade Agreement [go to A Place Called Chiapas- A Documentary on the Zapatistas]. Soon after its inception, the EZLN held an international conference in Chiapas called the Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and against Neoliberalism. It resulted in various other Zapatista groups emerging outside of Mexico, including the West Essex Zapatistas in East London.

The new Zapatista rebellion is a smaller and more peaceful uprising that has had few serious encounters with the government. A brief spurt of violence accompanied its inception when several thousand peasants seized five Chiapan towns. Hundreds of lives were lost when the military was sent to confront the rebels. Another spate of violence occurred when forty alleged Zapatista sympathizers were killed during the Acteal massacre in 1997.
[/QUOTE]

If there's anything to suggest they're crossing the border; I guess that could be interpreted a certain way and the President could call the Governors of the affected border states regarding the use of the National Guard.

GeorgiaRedneck

05-10-2006, 10:45 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">If there's anything to suggest they're crossing the border; I guess that could be interpreted a certain way and the President could call the Governors of the affected border states regarding the use of the National Guard. [/QUOTE]

You haven't seen many of the pictures and videos of the recent marches, have you? How many 'Che' flags and t-shirts do you need to see? Or FLMN banners? Socialist Workers Party? ANSWER?

If Bush made ONE PHONE CALL, JUST ONE, this would be a non-issue and his poll numbers would rebound like an over-inflated basketball. Do you think it will happen?

Neither do I...

GroovyLady

05-11-2006, 08:55 AM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">If Bush made ONE PHONE CALL, JUST ONE, this would be a non-issue[/QUOTE]

[Listen, I'm just playing the part of the dreaded Northeast Yankee as antagonist. I'm living in Deep Blue territory - I deal with liberal mindset everyday. If it were up to me, Nat'l Guard, Air Force and Army units would've been securing the Mexican and Canadian borders 9/12/01.]

Now, who's the President suppose to call? el ********** Fox? Fox promised to deal with the Zapatistas and he hasn't. And, he's not likely to. He's termed out and that "Zero" Marxist guy looks like he's going to win the election.

To the best of my knowledge, Bush can't activate ANY federal forces inside of State lines without the permission of Congress &/or state Governors.

It's the same reason why Bush couldn't take command and control over the Katrina response. The Posse Comitatus (sp?) Act is still in effect.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Posse Comitatus Act
Source: G-OPL

"POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement.[/QUOTE]

Posse Comitatus (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/PosseComitatus.html)

arthur

05-11-2006, 09:07 AM

who is the zero guy , do you mean - obrador - ?? i haven't checked lately on how he's doing but i think that fox will be replaced soon , july 2nd i think !! build that wall , secure the borders , put armed force's on the border ready to repel invaders , go after the employers of illegals and get out of the way as illegals head back to the border .

Terri

05-11-2006, 09:18 AM

I'm definitely not up on the presidential candidates in Mexico but isn't it true that they are considered to be worse than Fox?

Maybe someone would start a thread with some info about it.

GroovyLady

05-11-2006, 09:39 AM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Maybe someone would start a thread with some info about it.
[/QUOTE]

Hi Terri - I was going to but then couldn't figure out which heading to put it under (immigration, politics, terrorism, culture etc.) I didn't want to start it under "other".

Terri

05-11-2006, 09:41 AM

It probably should go under Foreign News.

GroovyLady

05-11-2006, 09:43 AM

Arthur - respectfull, the "wall" won't work. Immigrants will find a way to climb over it or dig under it. It would only wind up being the world's most expensive detterent.

I mean, the Chinese Wall didn't work out over the long term; Israel's fence isn't doing to good; Saudi Arabia is contemplating a wall but is having staffing issues (it's considered demeaning work and there's not enough Christians around - maybe we can "outsource" illegal immigrants):p

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">put armed force's on the border ready to repel invaders [/QUOTE]

see my post on Posse Comitatus. it will take an Act of Congress &/or approval by the State Governors in order to use military units to enforce immigration/border laws.

arthur

05-11-2006, 09:53 AM

from the little that i HEAR the guy is - manuel andres lopez obrador - i think he is the one that the usa may fear if he gets in power this coming july 2nd . the name is correct i think but it may be andres manuel , i don't know . i have no links but info on him is very easy to find googling his name . i hear that he's a socialist , i think that he is going to win , just a feeling but we'll see in a few months !! obrador could be considered worse as far as the usa is concerned . i think that obrador , chavez , castro and a few other proponents of socialism in south america may get together and oppose the usa !! ----- yeah , google - obrador - , lots of info on the guy !!

arthur

05-11-2006, 10:07 AM

groovy lady : respectful , the wall will work , see the wall that seperates the israeli's and palistinians , i say that their wall works well . i guess that it is a matter of interpretation as to the definition of what works well but from what i hear the israeli wall works well and it is better then accomodation or appeasment of illegal alien criminals in the usa on the path to citizenship !! a combination of wall , fence and american forces willing to use force will work fine and dandy !! ------- posse comitatus , don't know much about it , haven't checked your link yet . i HEAR that posse comitatus only applies to using the army against the citizens of the usa inside the usa . using armed forces on the borders to stop invasion over the borders is fine from what i know . ------ besides that , change the law to allow army , armed forces to repel illegal aliens coming illegally over the borders !!

Old Man

05-11-2006, 10:18 AM

Israel's wall works because it is a short wall monitored. But a wall along our border is not any good unless monitored and the enviromentalists will lobby the Democrats becasue desert wildlife can't move back and forth. What the Minutemen are going to put up may be the best. Since it has to be monitored and maintained, it will be a lot easier to fix a "fence" that is "bombed" than a wall that keeps having holes blown in it by drug dealers just to aggrivate the situation and in the meantime, they will be using tunnels in San Diego or using "legal" border crossings and then just not returning or crossing the wall like they do now where they do have a wall.

We have the electronic means to monitor a well designed fence like the Minutemen are going to build. They said they can build it for a fraction of the cost of a actual wall and it will be effective with monitoring.

Arizona's legislature has authorized the use of the Guard. The President probably could use the Guard in Arizona. The governor may be afraid of the voters enough and the legislature (Republican) to allow it.

arthur

05-11-2006, 10:37 AM

well i like a wall but i'm a reasonable guy , a double fence is ok with a maintanance road down the center , sure monitor the fence , wall , moat --- whatever it takes . lets see some drones that don't crash like the last one that crashed , the usa only had one drone and it crashed according to a link on an earlier post in gop-usa . lets see armed border patrol and huge jails set up in the desert like the jails that sherrif joe arpaio runs . ------ lets see american [traitors] employers of illegals jailed , lose property , whatever it takes to preserve sovereignty in the usa is ok with me .

GroovyLady

05-11-2006, 10:48 AM

Alright! Alright!

Arizona's up to bat!! Hey OM - got a phone number for the AZ Gov's office? It would be my honor and duty as an American citizen to start a telephone/fax campaign to get her to deploy her state's Nat'l Guard and coordinate with W on the border to enforce the immigration laws (ummm, like the ones passed in the 1996 Immigration Act).

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">it is better then accomodation or appeasment of illegal alien criminals in the usa on the path to citizenship[/QUOTE]

arthur - i ain't supporting accomodation or appeasement of criminals. i'm just saying, a wall won't work. look, it cost the country over $7 Billion tax dollars to build Ted Kennedy's "Big Dig" 1.5 mile stretch of road in Boston. The way our government is operating now, a "border wall" will take 40 years to build and cost more than the Iraq war and Katrina/Rita recovery efforts combined. additionally, as OM mentioned, all it takes is a rocket launcher or whatever heavy guns or explosives to blow the wall up; dig under it, etc.

Fence - maybe, but, expensive technological gadgets can get disabled, stolen, vandalized and destroyed.

People - real people, real eyes, real guns.

i support policies that keep immigrants topside; not send them into the "underground". if they burrow into sub-society - they're gone. good luck trying to bust illegal immigrants when they can't even be seen by our society's eyes.

Old Man

05-11-2006, 10:58 AM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">The Governor's office is located in the
Executive Tower at the State Capitol

The full mailing address is:
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Telephone (602) 542-4331
Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883
Fax (602) 542-1381[/QUOTE]Govenor's Office: Arizona (http://azgovernor.gov/Contact.asp)

Charie

05-11-2006, 11:08 AM

My vote is for the fence - well patrolled whether by a combination of electronics and boots on the ground.

Lance, I think your idea of shaming people who hire illegals for nannies, gardeners etc. is a good one. That will probably take awhile, though.

In Wisconsin, I see very few Hispanics (so far) in landscaping companies, heavy-duty equipment companies or working on farms (no ranches here). Locally, one of the sausage making plants has advertised for help in Mexico, or so I'm told.

If people need help, they just hire Americans (who won't do these jobs http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/doh.gif ) who have big lawnmowers or high school or college kids. Businesses hire landscaping businesses.

I think the prez needs to take a trip through Wis. Minn. Mich. N.Dak S. Dak, etc. because we mostly all do our own dirty jobs and since when are there degrading jobs, anyhow? How can any job be a degrading one? I don't even understand the concept. If a job needs doing it's worth doing. I understand clean and dirty jobs, but not degrading jobs! :scratchhead:

The man who owns a local septic system business is looked upon as a go-getter and makes a very good living. He started out working for another company and branched off into his own.

OM touched upon the problems of migrant workers.

Because large amounts of workers are needed at a particular time when crops are ripe we do need them then. But, we don't need them year round. Green cards for legal workers should be the order of the day in that case. They can come spend some months here and go back home when the picking seasons are over. There are many jobs that keep people away from their homes and families in this country.

One of them is military service.

gfafblifr

05-11-2006, 11:15 AM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">In regard to this comment:

"Also, have you figured out a way to enforce the law on Mr. & Mrs. Suburb who hire illegal immigrants to clean their house and landscape their lawn or Mr. and Ms. Big City who hire illegal immigrants to be nannies for their kids? "

I believe this can be solved by cultural methods.

If we can get it to where it is widely considered a shameful act (which it should be) for a person to hire an illegal alien for domestic work, then many less people will do it because they won't want to be social outcasts.
[/QUOTE]

I know this is a late response but I don't read every thread here every day but while reading through this one today, I found that your comments above had a certain truth to them. You may have hit upon part of the problem with getting people to understand. In your comments, you changed from illegal immigrants to illegal aliens in describing these people. That's what more people need to do. Use the proper term(to me) to describe them and it doesn't sound so nice any more. Then people will be more ready to accept that we need to do something. Politically correct is not something we need here. At least, that's my opinion of it.

slickwilly

05-11-2006, 11:31 AM

...no road down the middle of the two fences: land mines. Some planted sooooo deep that tunnellers will be given pause.

I know this is not going to happen (unless we really get attacked again), but i am so frustrated with the 'you can't fix this' crowd. TRY something...anything . That is what the feds are not doing: trying.

GroovyLady

05-11-2006, 12:45 PM

well, the thing with landmines is once an animal got blown up by one PETA and other animal activists would start demanding the fence and landmines get taken down and then toss a lawsuit on the government for endangering the life a poor innocent creature. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

slickwilly

05-11-2006, 01:04 PM

Land mines don't kill animals (those that can get throught the fence, anyway...): those are for PEOPLE!

...i can't believe i said that... http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

arthur

05-11-2006, 01:04 PM

the wall , fence , border guards , whatever you use is going to be better then we have . hire border guards , put army on the border . heck , let the ranchers patrol with 30.30s the way they might have done in the 50s . every night i lock the doors , go to bed but someone could get in so many people have backup on the nightstand . i don't care how much it costs . we spend billions on the borders in iraq and afghanistan and other foreign lands so spend it here and not there or spend it in both places . ----- if they start using land mines and blowing up animals - whatever they blow up on sovereign us soil it would [should] be an act of war and would only advertise the border situation !!

GroovyLady

05-11-2006, 01:23 PM

Alright - here we go:

Old Man has just said the Arizona State Legislature has authorized use of its state's National Guard.

Lets start calling/faxing/mailing letters to the Gov. of AZ DEMANDING she employ the use of Nat'l Guard to enforce immigration laws on the border of Arizona. If she says "OK, do it"; then the President can make the call. To the best of my knowledge, the President can NOT initiate military action inside a state. The border is the border, military units would have to operate inside State lines.

Here's Gov. Napolitano's info. again:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">The Governor's office is located in the
Executive Tower at the State Capitol

The full mailing address is:

The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Telephone (602) 542-4331
Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883
Fax (602) 542-1381[/QUOTE]

Inform her the Arizona Legislature has approved the use of National Guard for border patrol and she has a responsiblity to the people to enforce the immigration laws. Once the Nat'l Guard is activated in AZ, THEN we got some leverage with the White House and both Houses of the Legislative branch.

Lets do this!!

GOP TEAM GO! http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

Old Man

05-11-2006, 02:19 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">At one time, only the staunchest advocates for cracking down on illegal immigration backed the idea of putting National Guard troops along the porous Arizona-Mexico border.

But now the idea that was rejected in the past as being outside the National Guard's responsibilities has the blessings of Arizona's Democratic governor and cleared one half of the Republican-led Legislature.

The public's frustration with Arizona's role as the nation's busiest illegal entry point has breathed new life into the idea, with a recent poll showing that nearly two-thirds of voters favor it.

"It has shifted to the mainstream political debate," said Jennifer Allen, director of the Border Action Network, an immigrant rights group that opposes the idea. "It's disturbing."[/QUOTE]Channel 4 (http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4553703)
This is a little old. I will see if I can get an update at the meeting tonight where there should be some state legislature reps.

Old Man

05-11-2006, 02:36 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Unwilling to wait for federal help like the governor, a House panel voted unanimously Monday to use state tax dollars to deploy the National Guard along the state’s southern border.

HB2579 would put $10 million into the budget for Gov. Janet Napolitano to mobilize at least some of the state’s 4,000 Guard troops.
Snip-----------
There are currently fewer than 200 Guard troops along the border in what the governor has portrayed as a “support’’ role. [/QUOTE]

East Valley Tribune (http://www.eastvalleytribun e.com/index.php?sty=58666)

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Governor sending more troops to border Associated Press March 8, 2006 PHOENIX - Gov. Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she signed an executive order to expand the Arizona National Guard's presence at the state's porous border with Mexico to support federal efforts to combat illegal immigration and other border problems.

The Democratic governor also said she would veto a bill in the Republican-led Legislature requiring her to send troops to the border, but wants lawmakers to pass a proposal to pay for the expanded National Guard role.

She said the Legislature's pending bill requiring additional deployment as a result of her declaration last summer of an immigration emergency in four border counties would be an unconstitutional infringement of her powers as commander in chief of the Arizona National Guard. [/QUOTE]
East Valley Tribune (http://www.eastvalleytribun e.com/index.php?sty=60693)

These are a little more up to date and provide a little more apparently on the dispute over the use of the Guard. She sounds like she is looking for reasons not to use them but is using some. Like I said, I will see if I can find out more tonight.

STDog

05-11-2006, 03:01 PM

Here's a plan.

Since the border is a hot, dry region, and the military actions for the foreseeable future will take place in hot dry places, the federal governmnet should excercise eminent domain to aquire a 1-5 mile wide swath of land alonge the U.S. - Mexico border. This area would become a military traing area with rotation live fire exercises.

Trespassing on a base current caries a fine up to $500 and/or 6 month in jail. That coupled with the danger of entering a live fire range would serve as quite the detterent.

It being a live fire range would give the military reason to keep people out, the puttuing up an effective barrier that would be maintained.

(something similar could also be done at the U.S. - Canada border)

Once the border is secury, then we can start dealing with the individuals already inside.

The current suituation is like bailing water with a cup, while there is a 2" hole in the bottom of the boat. If you just bail, the large leak you've ignored will eventually sink you. First you plug the hole as best you can, then you bail water. You may not get the hole completer plugged, but you can slow the leak enough to make headway with the bailing. You may have to continue bailing for a long time and never get all the water out, but at least you're still afloat.

At some point you can try plugging the hole better. But if you never try to plug it at all, you are doomed to go down.