"CONSERVATIVES" love illegal immigration

[cloobi_dubis]

4) His corporate supporters like the cheap labor, but live in castles themselves, so they don't have to worry about their daughters getting gang-raped by five Mexicans in Queens.

5) He's a "colorblind conservative" who does not see that race matters, and that the influx of that many non-whites will be disastrous for whites specifically and America generally.



Oh, man! You're the idiot asshole.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by clash715
NOW HERE IS THE QUESTION. If the conservatives on this board think illegal immigration is wrong and is harmful to our country, how can they vote for Bush?

Easy. Because Kerry would be worse. He would try for everything Davis wanted, but on a federal level.

Bush's plan is a realistic attemp at a nearly insolvable problem.

Don't worry. The fence is coming....someday.

 

[William Joyce]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Easy. Because Kerry would be worse. He would try for everything Davis wanted, but on a federal level.

God, I love American politics.

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by William Joyce
Bush supports the illegal invasion because

1) He's a wealthy bonesman from Yale whose ranch in Tejas will be protected by the Secret Service until he sends them away. He has nothing to worry about, personally.

Sounds like the Kennedys....

2) He believes the Messicans will vote for him. But he's wrong. They vote D. That was Karl Rove's idea. Karl is getting to know the Hispanics up close and personal these days. Guess what, asshole? THEY HATE YOUR WHITE ASS! Lord, save us.

They vote D? Cannot speak for Mexicans...I know many that are legal now and vote R.

3) He doesn't give a crap about working Americans crowded about by the invasion.

This whole country is is all about immigrants - face it.

4) His corporate supporters like the cheap labor, but live in castles themselves, so they don't have to worry about their daughters getting gang-raped by five Mexicans in Queens.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

5) He's a "colorblind conservative" who does not see that race matters, and that the influx of that many non-whites will be disastrous for whites specifically and America generally.

Race will forever be an issue....

6. And, he's an idiot.

So are most Americans. Sorry. Did you know most of you lot don't even know what the stripes on the American flag stand for? Scarey isn't it? I came across someone recently who had no idea who the man on the five dollar bill was. Yes, she knew he was Lincoln but who the hell is Lincoln???

7. Did I mention he's a coward? He's more interested in kissing the Wall Street Journal's ass than protecting America.

Coward? In what way....Coming up with words to fill space I gather.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by William Joyce
God, I love American politics.

I don't. I think democracy stinks.

 

[William Joyce]

I'd agree.

 

[NewGuy]

Democracy DOES stink. Take back our Constitutional Republic.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I don't. I think democracy stinks.

Me too. I think there should be no choice about individual rights and free enterprise. The mob should not be able to decree repression and socialism if it becomes that ignorant. Yes, I espouse the Tyranny of Freedom. There should exist no choice but individual reponsibility.

A world government along these principle would propel humanity to the ends of space and time, and masters of this dominion would we truly be, if we allow ourselves, and each other.

 

[Merlin1047]

"I am talking about doing the RIGHT thing. When it comes to pandering to illegals, both democrats AND republicans are doing it. We need to send a message to BOTH parties that it is unacceptable."
=========================================

I am an immigrant myself. I came to this country when I was six. Since then I have become a citizen, served in the Army, did two tours in Viet Nam, built a business and now I'm hoping to retire before too long. I say that to put my remarks in context. Being an immigrant myself, it would be the height of hypocracy for me to oppose immigration. Immigrants have been an asset to our nation throughout its history. However, every nation has a right to control its borders. Every nation has a right to demand and enforce certain standards from those who wish to move here from other parts of the world. And every nation has the right to prosecute and expell those who refuse to abide by the rules.

You complain that Pres. Bush did not meet your expectations regarding the enforcement of immigration law. I feel much the same as you in this regard. But one has to put emotion aside and take a rational view of the situation. The numbers vary wildly, but for the sake of argument, let's say that there are approximately five million illegals in this country. Tell me this - how do you propose we chase them all down and deal with them? The logistics of that problem would be so monstrous that our law enforcement would have time for little else for several years. This is what is facing Pres. Bush. Personally, I believe that there is also some element of pandering involved, but that's my opinion and it's based more on circustances than on observed fact.

So what to do? Seems to me that the first thing we have to do is get control of our borders. We have troops stationed throughout the world and many could be brought home. For example - do we really need all those military assets sitting around in Germany? We also have a National Guard and reserves. Annual deployments of 3 to four weeks in place of summer camp would proved sufficient manpower to cover at least fifty percent of our southern border. As the border is made more secure, declare that those who are currently in the country illegally will be given limited amnesty provided they register with INS within 60 days. Those who fail to register can be tracked down by forcing the Social Security system to cooperate with law enforcement. It is not difficult to search the database for bogus numbers and fictitious names. Then find these individuals and kick them out.

In the meantime, perhaps we should consider amending our constitution to include a statement outlining to whom it applies ie, citizens, legal immigrants, legal visitors. I find it ludicrous that a person can enter this country legally and suddenly acquire "rights". As far as I'm concerned, an illegal has no rights beyond the right to be treated humanely.

Now to your statement. Do you remember the phrase "Throw out the baby with the bath water"? Seems to me that is what you are advocating. Like you, I dislike Pres. Bush's policy on illegals. Like you, that issue is important enough to me that I would not vote for him IF A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE CANDIDATE WAS AVAILABLE. I will not vote for kerry because I thoroughly despise him. I will not vote for Ralph Nader because I think he's a certifiable nut with Stalinist/Leninist tendencies. If I take your philosophy and refuse to vote, I have accomplished nothing other than allow the liberal left to make my choice for me. Because every conservative who stays home this November might as well vote for kerry. And if the unthinkable happens and you wake up one day to see kerry's horse face leering at you through a White House window, the fact that you did not vote for him will be of no solace whatever.

 

[Merlin1047]

Why is it that I can read my post several times to correct errors and not find any, but as soon as I click on "submit" they jump out? Must be some kind of problem with the program - right.

Anyway on the following statement "I find it ludicrous that a person can enter this country legally and suddenly acquire "rights"." scratch "legally" and substitute "illegally".

oy vey. soooooorrrrryyyyy

 

[clash715]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
"I am talking about doing the RIGHT thing. When it comes to pandering to illegals, both democrats AND republicans are doing it. We need to send a message to BOTH parties that it is unacceptable."
=========================================

I am an immigrant myself. I came to this country when I was six. Since then I have become a citizen, served in the Army, did two tours in Viet Nam, built a business and now I'm hoping to retire before too long. I say that to put my remarks in context. Being an immigrant myself, it would be the height of hypocracy for me to oppose immigration. Immigrants have been an asset to our nation throughout its history. However, every nation has a right to control its borders. Every nation has a right to demand and enforce certain standards from those who wish to move here from other parts of the world. And every nation has the right to prosecute and expell those who refuse to abide by the rules.


So what to do? .

Hi Merlin, my mother is an immigrant too. What i find enraging is that my mother had to wait her fair turn to come here, so why don't Mexicans? Millions of people from India, China, Pakistan, Europe, Africa, etc, would love to come here, but they just can't hop over the border like Mexicans can. If the government ends up putting limits on legal immigration because they keep giving amnesty (to mainly Mexicans), then all those people from Asia and Africa and Europe that are waiting will eventually have to wait longer. This is NOT fair.


As for the solution to the problem, it would be easy. Unfortunately, it will never be done because businesses OWN THIS COUNTRY. They pull the shots.

The solution would be to actually ENFORCE the existing labor laws - albeit, adding some bite to the law. Businesses are breaking the law when they hire illegals. They should be prosecuted. If a business was fined $100,000 for each violation of hiring an illegal, the practice would end quickly. Illegals come here to find work. If employers were afraid to hire illegals, the incentive for illegals to come would be gone...employers would simply not hire them.

Additionally, any person caught in this country that is illegal should be fingerprinted and their DNA should be collected. They should then be sent home and NEVER be allowed to immigrate to the US (barred for life). If people KNEW that they would be barred from the US for life if they immigrated here illegally, they would probably do the right thing and wait there fair turn to come here. There would be a strong disincentive for them to break the law.



Again, the situation could be resolved without more INS or border security. The INS is hardly doing squat now. Their hands are tied because the government won't allow them to do their work. The government is hindering the INS because our government does what businesses want - and businesses want cheap labor (from Mexico).

So there you have it. The solution is available, but because of powerful special interests (big business in this case), nothing will happen. Businesses will continue to demand cheap labor, and the American middle class will eventually evaporate from the weight of millions of illegal Mexicans that are willing to work for peanuts.

 

[phadras]

amnesty for illegals.. I live in Oklahoma and in the last five years we have become overrun with Mexicans.. The United States is not responsible for Mexico's inability to form a solid economy.. Those conservatives that are for it are probably making a killing off the low wages they pay the illegals...

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by phadras
amnesty for illegals.. I live in Oklahoma and in the last five years we have become overrun with Mexicans.. The United States is not responsible for Mexico's inability to form a solid economy.. Those conservatives that are for it are probably making a killing off the low wages they pay the illegals...

Agreed!

 

[William Joyce]

The United States is not responsible for Mexico's inability to form a solid economy

Excellent point. And what makes Bushy, Rove and the rest of the open borders lobby think that Mexicans won't bring their habits with them?

It's not the geography, people. It's the people.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by William Joyce
Excellent point. And what makes Bushy, Rove and the rest of the open borders lobby think that Mexicans won't bring their habits with them?

It's not the geography, people. It's the people.

I will tiptoe around miswording the following statement:

William Joyce is absolutely correct IF AND ONLY IF the American structure (economy and political) let themselves be overwhelmed by numbers of people and actually curtail existing policy in favor of policy reflected by the nation of origin.

The statement of "its the people" is correct.....ONLY in numbers great and powerful enough to affect policy change. At that point, it becomes "the government, the government".

 

[Merlin1047]

Businesses are breaking the law when they hire illegals. They should be prosecuted.

Liberals love to tax business, blame business and vilify business. But what they can't seem to comprehend is one simple principle of business that is as certain as a law of physics - and that is that business NEVER pays the expenses - be they wages, taxes or fines. ALL expenses are factored into the price of the goods or services produced. So if the government levies a fine of $100,000 for hiring an illegal as you suggest, guess who ultimately gets stuck with the tab? Yup, the customer.

Second, you are treating business as if they were a law enforcement agency. They are not. That is not to say that businesses have no responsibility to ascertain employee status, but the cost of detailed background investigations, especially in high-turnover jobs, would be enormous. And, of course, you and I would end up paying it. I go back to my point getting more out of the Social Security Administration. As soon as they detect a mismatch between name and social security number, they should alert the INS or local law enforcement.

Third, instead of fining the company for hiring illegals, let's try something a little more effective. If a company has failed to exercise due diligence in its hiring practice, then prosecute the CEO and/or the human resources exec. If they think their butts might actually get sent to prison, I believe their interest in verifying the status of employees would take a quantum leap.

Finally with regard to the Mexican illegals. Let's abandon the idealistic "kick them out" fantasy. The facts are that there are too many already here, we are currently unable to slow down the influx, much less control it, and the only way to get a handle on things is first to identify those that are here.

Eventually we can work on making it less attractive to sneak into the country. Let's prohibit illegals from collecting any kind of social service benefit. Let's stop giving illegals free medical care. Let's stop the practice of conferring citizenship on the children born of illegal immigrants in this country. How stupid is it that on the one hand we tell people that they are obliged to respect our immigration law while on the other we reward them for breaking it?

 

[eric]

Merlin for the most part I agree with most of your post, with two exceptions.

If a company has failed to exercise due diligence in its hiring practice, then prosecute the CEO and/or the human resources exec

As you pointed out businesses are not law enforcement agencies and should not have to shoulder the responsibility of verifying immigration status. They should not be here in the first place, period. You would be willing to put a law abiding HR director in jail for a mistake or for being fooled by fake documents yet you are willing to forgive the illegal, not deport him, but rather identify him ? Sorry this makes no sense to me.

Finally with regard to the Mexican illegals. Let's abandon the idealistic "kick them out" fantasy. The facts are that there are too many already here, we are currently unable to slow down the influx, much less control it, and the only way to get a handle on things is first to identify those that are here

How is this a fantasy ? First put the national guard on the boarder, anyone who crosses gets shot, influx stopped !!!

Anytime a govt agency encounters an illegal, he is arrested and deported. Eventually there will be no more illegals.

 

[tybalt]

Bush's plan is a realistic attempt at a nearly insolvable problem.

Maybe you're too young to remember the Berlin Wall. West Berlin was not being overrun with a flood of East Germans.

Illegal immigration is a "nearly insolvable problem" because it benefits certain business interests. Also, if terrorism was the huge threat that Bush hypes it up to be, don't you think something would be done about illegal immigration?


It's easier to lead people away from what they fear than toward what they want.

 

[clash715]

Liberals love to tax business, blame business and vilify business. But what they can't seem to comprehend is one simple principle of business that is as certain as a law of physics - and that is that business NEVER pays the expenses - be they wages, taxes or fines. ALL expenses are factored into the price of the goods or services produced. So if the government levies a fine of $100,000 for hiring an illegal as you suggest, guess who ultimately gets stuck with the tab? Yup, the customer.

Come on Merlin. Aren't Republicans the ones that are "big" on taking responsibility for ones actions? If businesses are hiring illegals, they are breaking the law. They need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for it. If a business is fined $100,000 for each infraction of hiring an illegal, and they try to pass these accrued fines on to their customers, guess what is going to happen? Yes, you got that right, they will go out of business. Their competitors will have a competitive advantage and drive the offending businesses out of the market.

Your argument is like saying businesses should not be fined for illegal dumping of toxic waste because they would pass that fine onto their customers (through added costs). That is absurd. Why do you want everybody to take responsibility EXCEPT businesses?

Second, you are treating business as if they were a law enforcement agency. They are not. That is not to say that businesses have no responsibility to ascertain employee status, but the cost of detailed background investigations, especially in high-turnover jobs, would be enormous.

I totally disagree. Here is an excerpt from an article in the LA times:

The vacillation over how to effectively control illegal migration drives a senior immigration investigator right up the wall, because he believes the bureaucracy has the answer in its own hands. The investigator has more than 20 years' experience with the INS. Still, he believes he must remain anonymous for fear of retribution.

Currently, he explains, the law requires an employer to make a good-faith effort to ascertain that applicants have valid identification. However, he considers that law a political con job because it gives unscrupulous employers an easy out: They can't be held responsible for not having the expertise to identify illegal or forged documents, so anything short of those being written in crayon can pass muster. The biggest abuses, he says, are of forged immigrant registration cards (green cards) and Social Security cards.

What frustrates him is his conviction that a procedure is already in place that would "immediately identify 70% of the illegal workforce." He explains that as a part of the 1986 immigration law, a voluntary employee verification pilot program was established, and is still operating. Under the program, the validity of Social Security cards and green cards can be quickly checked on all new employees by phone or online. He says the system could easily be expanded into a mandatory nationwide computer hookup by cross-indexing the data bases of the immigration service with the Social Security Administration. The effect would be that honest employers could instantly ascertain the legality of their workforce, and dishonest employers would have no excuse for hiring undocumented workers.

Bill Strasberger, a spokesman for the immigration service, says the pilot program is considered successful. "Employers using it are pleased, and so are we. It provides verification with confidentiality." Asked if it would be expanded or made mandatory by Congress, he laughed briefly, then said, "It really is the direction we need to move in."

Why, then, aren't we doing it? The investigator says that Congress refuses to make the program mandatory so as not to offend big agribusiness and other industries that freely employ illegal workers. These industries then take some of those profits and give generously to members of Congress.

Third, instead of fining the company for hiring illegals, let's try something a little more effective. If a company has failed to exercise due diligence in its hiring practice, then prosecute the CEO and/or the human resources exec. If they think their butts might actually get sent to prison, I believe their interest in verifying the status of employees would take a quantum leap.

I like this idea. But I still believe fines should be levied. I am sure that if your idea was implemented without fines, businesses would simply lobby the government for light jail sentences for the offending CEOs and HR execs. Again, the disincentive wouldn't be strong enough.

Eventually we can work on making it less attractive to sneak into the country. Let's prohibit illegals from collecting any kind of social service benefit. Let's stop giving illegals free medical care. Let's stop the practice of conferring citizenship on the children born of illegal immigrants in this country. How stupid is it that on the one hand we tell people that they are obliged to respect our immigration law while on the other we reward them for breaking it?

I agree with all of what you said with this last quote. I still believe that businesses that break the law must be held accountable, and that illegals should be fingerprinted and their DNA collected. Once identified, an illegal should be deported and never allowed to legally migrate to this country.

Unfortunately, what you have now in many border states is a situation where businesses are getting basically subsidized labor. Businesses here in California are paying illegals peanuts ($5 to $8 per hour). Most of these illegals are breeding like rats - they are having 4 to 8 kids a piece. Even if they are being taxed, they are usually only pulling in around $20k per year. It costs taxpayers $6000 per year to educate one child in our public schools here. So if an illegal has say 5 kids, he is costing the state (just for educating his litter), $30,000 each year. Mutliply this by a few million illegals, and you break the bank. They are drawing way more out of the system than they are putting in.

And this is just education. Also consider health care, maternity care, law enforcement, etc.

In summary, businesses are getting the labor for nothing, and then the middle class is having to foot the bill through increased taxes. WE ARE SUBSIDIZING BUSINESSES TO GET CHEAP LABOR AND SUBSIDIZING MEXICANS TO BREED. This is just not right.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by clash715

NOW HERE IS THE QUESTION. If the conservatives on this board think illegal immigration is wrong and is harmful to our country, how can they vote for Bush? Bush supports an amnesty for illegals. I voted my conscience in the Davis recall. Why don't "conservatives" do the same and get rid of Bush? Is it just a matter of not being able to say that they were wrong?

I hear ya on that. I want the borders patrolled hardcore so that no more free-loading illegals get in. My policy would be this.

There are about 8 million illegals in this country. Not an easy thing to just grab 8 million people and throw them out. We fucked up for years and let them in. So thats our bad. Now to correct this, we make them trackable and hold them accountable to pay taxes and such. The second thing we do is patrol the borders. Increase the funding to the INS 10 fold so that they can have 10 times as many agents guarding our borders. That goes for both Mexico and Canada as well as the ports. The more people we have gurading the borders, the more illegals we'll turn away, The less likely they'll try to come in illegally.

Bush has enacted step one of the tracking the illegals. I hope that he implements step 2 after the elcetion is over. Also, Bush's policies elsewhere are far better than Kerry's non-policies. So the reason we vote for Bush is because he has a vision. He has a plan to stop terrorist and im sure he has a plan to stop the illegals. But not wanting to alienate the Hispanic vote, he might have played a little politics and held off on that idea till after the election.

No 3rd party will win when they have no base. Neither of the top 2 will win when they pick a candidate devoid of any real ideas and principles. Bush has ideas. Bush has principles. Bush puts them into practice.

Thats why we vote for Bush.