Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You'll have to get a little more specific. I don't know what you're talking about. What is this $100K ? And do you think some big businesses are the only vested interest that gains from illegal aliens ? Have you never seen my list of vested interests ?Rather than talk about Obama's amnesty, we should be talking about Eisenhower's MASS DEPORTATION PROGRAM in 1954 (Operation Wetback). We should be insisting on Operation Wetback II, and NOTHING LESS. We should be talking about mass deportation, because that is what needs to be done to restore America back to its proper status of AMERICANS holding jobs, not being unemployed, wages going to sales in US stores not Mexican ones, US health workers dealing with US diseases, not foreign ones, etc etc.
I'm tired of hearing the immigration issue being discussed on Obama's terms and mindset (amnesty). I say we should be talking about it on Eisenhower's terms and mindset > mass deportation. And it makes more sense tactically as well. If you sell a car for $5K, you ask for $6K, not $4K.
In 1954, I made a current events report to my 4th grade class, with a newspaper clipping about Operation Wetback. I recall that INS agents (which were a fraction of the # of ICE agents we have now, went house to house in Southwestern states, hunting down illegal aliens, and deporting them. They deported 2.1 million (more than any US president, despite false claims from Obama supporters), and another 1 million fled on their own back to Mexico.
The illegals were shipped to the south of Mexico, where Mexican authorities objected loudly. Eisenhower paid zero attention to their objections, and when the Mexicans refused to send boats out to the ships, the illegals were boated in and dumped in the shallow water, where they simply waded ashore. The ships then simply returned to the US.
This is the way illegal immigration should be handled today, and how it should be discussed. Lastly, it is interesting to note that by 1959, illegal immigration in the US, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico - CSMonitor.com
There is no reason to be so crass about it, nor spend the money neccesary to transport 12M back to Mexico, or wherever.
The solution is simple. A $100K fine per employee who is not eligible to work in the US.
That catches not just the "wetbacks" it also catches the rest who come here on work visas and then just say after that visa has expired.
Not many companies are going to be willing to pay a $100,000 fine for illegal employees.
No jobs, and they leave on their own.
Oh sure, that leaves probably 2 or 3 million who are working cash jobs that the IRS will never catch them, but we can absorb 2-3M illegal immigrants no sweat.
$100K per illegal employee.
You really think Repubs would vote to do that the 1%?
Who do you think owns most big businesses that currently advertise for workers in Mexico. Or do you think they're all like Romney who fired his illegals because he was running for prez?
That's exactly what scores of prominent Democrats said in 1954, when Eisenhower first announced his plans for Operation Wetback. Disregarding them entirely (as I do now with your words) he went ahead and deported more illegal aliens than than any president in US history. By 1959, for all practical purposes, illegal immigration ceased to exist in America.Rather than talk about Obama's amnesty, we should be talking about Eisenhower's MASS DEPORTATION PROGRAM in 1954 (Operation Wetback). We should be insisting on Operation Wetback II, and NOTHING LESS. We should be talking about mass deportation, because that is what needs to be done to restore America back to its proper status of AMERICANS holding jobs, not being unemployed, wages going to sales in US stores not Mexican ones, US health workers dealing with US diseases, not foreign ones, etc etc.
I'm tired of hearing the immigration issue being discussed on Obama's terms and mindset (amnesty). I say we should be talking about it on Eisenhower's terms and mindset > mass deportation. And it makes more sense tactically as well. If you sell a car for $5K, you ask for $6K, not $4K.
In 1954, I made a current events report to my 4th grade class, with a newspaper clipping about Operation Wetback. I recall that INS agents (which were a fraction of the # of ICE agents we have now, went house to house in Southwestern states, hunting down illegal aliens, and deporting them. They deported 2.1 million (more than any US president, despite false claims from Obama supporters), and another 1 million fled on their own back to Mexico.
The illegals were shipped to the south of Mexico, where Mexican authorities objected loudly. Eisenhower paid zero attention to their objections, and when the Mexicans refused to send boats out to the ships, the illegals were boated in and dumped in the shallow water, where they simply waded ashore. The ships then simply returned to the US.
This is the way illegal immigration should be handled today, and how it should be discussed. Lastly, it is interesting to note that by 1959, illegal immigration in the US, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico - CSMonitor.com
While I agree that we need to secure the border and stop any further migration of additional illegals into this country, the idea of deporting upwards of 20 million people is about the dumbest thing we could do, unless destroying our economy is at the top of our list. I'm sure you probably cannot figure out why that would be devastating to the economy, but hey, it would.
Exactly right.
Those who keep repeating the meaningless demand that we simply round them up and deport them have no clue what is involved or what we would have to do if we were able to actually do it.
1. The race card died out 20 years ago with the O.J. Simpson trial.That was then. This is now. And the issue must be handled much more delicately than it was 60 years ago. But the problem is that Obama is not a delicate person. Nor is he diplomatic. He's simply a charismatic figurehead. A puppet hung upon his own self-manipulated strings.
Yes, action must be taken. Lawful action, not Executive Fiat action.
An invasion shouldn't be met with a delicate response. The United States is being invaded by Latin Americans from a place where life is cheap. Just the same as Britain is being invaded by peasants from the Third World where life is even cheaper.
There is no "invasion" and the only ones who don't value life are racists.
Sounds like you haven't thought through the ramifications of NOT doing it.Rather than talk about Obama's amnesty, we should be talking about Eisenhower's MASS DEPORTATION PROGRAM in 1954 (Operation Wetback). We should be insisting on Operation Wetback II, and NOTHING LESS. We should be talking about mass deportation, because that is what needs to be done to restore America back to its proper status of AMERICANS holding jobs, not being unemployed, wages going to sales in US stores not Mexican ones, US health workers dealing with US diseases, not foreign ones, etc etc.
I'm tired of hearing the immigration issue being discussed on Obama's terms and mindset (amnesty). I say we should be talking about it on Eisenhower's terms and mindset > mass deportation. And it makes more sense tactically as well. If you sell a car for $5K, you ask for $6K, not $4K.
In 1954, I made a current events report to my 4th grade class, with a newspaper clipping about Operation Wetback. I recall that INS agents (which were a fraction of the # of ICE agents we have now, went house to house in Southwestern states, hunting down illegal aliens, and deporting them. They deported 2.1 million (more than any US president, despite false claims from Obama supporters), and another 1 million fled on their own back to Mexico.
The illegals were shipped to the south of Mexico, where Mexican authorities objected loudly. Eisenhower paid zero attention to their objections, and when the Mexicans refused to send boats out to the ships, the illegals were boated in and dumped in the shallow water, where they simply waded ashore. The ships then simply returned to the US.
This is the way illegal immigration should be handled today, and how it should be discussed. Lastly, it is interesting to note that by 1959, illegal immigration in the US, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico - CSMonitor.com
While I agree that we need to secure the border and stop any further migration of additional illegals into this country, the idea of deporting upwards of 20 million people is about the dumbest thing we could do, unless destroying our economy is at the top of our list. I'm sure you probably cannot figure out why that would be devastating to the economy, but hey, it would.
Oh,please DO explain it for us.
Make sure and use a lot of hyperbole and unfounded speculation...Make up lots of fantasy scenarios, too..those are always funny to read...
Close and enforce the border.
Deport all illegals.
How about the fantasy scenario of "deport all the illegals"?
Seriously, think it through.
So what do you see as the "actual meaning" of the word "invasion" ?There is a difference between effectively controlling the border, which we must do; and "locking down," "sealing," or "closing" the border, which we are NOT going to do.
whatever...play word games all you want.
Close and enforce the border.
Deport all illegals.
The actual meanings of words is not a game.
restore America back to its proper status of AMERICANS holding jobs,
You'll have to destroy China first.
Many American jobs ended up there because American workers wanted too much money for too little work.
Any suggestion mass deportation will help you much, has to ignore the truth.
After that, America would, if it went far right, become a pariah state, with much of the work refusing to deal with it.
What are you going to do, invaded everyone, or just nuke one as a lesson to the rest?
This doesn't make any sense. I have no idea what you're talking about, and probably don't care either.restore America back to its proper status of AMERICANS holding jobs,
You'll have to destroy China first.
Many American jobs ended up there because American workers wanted too much money for too little work.
Any suggestion mass deportation will help you much, has to ignore the truth.
After that, America would, if it went far right, become a pariah state, with much of the work refusing to deal with it.
What are you going to do, invaded everyone, or just nuke one as a lesson to the rest?
To say that Americans want too much money for too little work, and then hold China up as an example of correct labor conduct, is about as ludicrous as it gets. China's workers are paid peanuts. It's not that Americans get paid too much, it is that China's workers get too little. This can be dealt with if only we had leaders with some backbone. The recent election is a good start to that.restore America back to its proper status of AMERICANS holding jobs,
You'll have to destroy China first.
Many American jobs ended up there because American workers wanted too much money for too little work.
Any suggestion mass deportation will help you much, has to ignore the truth.
After that, America would, if it went far right, become a pariah state, with much of the work refusing to deal with it.
What are you going to do, invaded everyone, or just nuke one as a lesson to the rest?
You know what I love about this statement is that none of the so called "Patriotic Americans" have nothing to say about it
It's not that Americans get paid too much, it is that China's workers get too little
Not if we put tariffs on their imports.It's not that Americans get paid too much, it is that China's workers get too little
World market, dear.
If one works for less, they get the work.
Not if we put tariffs on their imports.It's not that Americans get paid too much, it is that China's workers get too little
World market, dear.
If one works for less, they get the work.
Not if we put tariffs on their imports.It's not that Americans get paid too much, it is that China's workers get too little
World market, dear.
If one works for less, they get the work.
Not if we put tariffs on their imports.It's not that Americans get paid too much, it is that China's workers get too little
World market, dear.
If one works for less, they get the work.
And how are you going to accomplish that my friend 98% of the people in DC are in the pocket of the those big businesses you think they are going to let your Perfect Pres. do that he would be kicked out of office so fast it would make your head spin
Not if we put tariffs on their imports.It's not that Americans get paid too much, it is that China's workers get too little
World market, dear.
If one works for less, they get the work.
And how are you going to accomplish that my friend 98% of the people in DC are in the pocket of the those big businesses you think they are going to let your Perfect Pres. do that he would be kicked out of office so fast it would make your head spin
So you KNOW of these businesses that are operating in China, AND are contributing to "the people in DC." ?Not if we put tariffs on their imports.It's not that Americans get paid too much, it is that China's workers get too little
World market, dear.
If one works for less, they get the work.
And how are you going to accomplish that my friend 98% of the people in DC are in the pocket of the those big businesses you think they are going to let your Perfect Pres. do that he would be kicked out of office so fast it would make your head spin
So you don't think protecting the American people is proper ? And you don't think protecting what's yours is proper ? Do you have locks on the doors to your home ?Not if we put tariffs on their imports.It's not that Americans get paid too much, it is that China's workers get too little
World market, dear.
If one works for less, they get the work.
Yep, protectionism is always better than doing the job properly.
So you KNOW of these businesses that are operating in China, AND are contributing to "the people in DC." ?
David Corn of Mother Jonesreports that “according to government documents . . . Romney, when he was in charge of Bain [Capital], invested heavily in a Chinese manufacturing company that depended on US outsourcing for its profits—and that explicitly stated that such outsourcing was crucial to its success.”
1. I see no answer here, to my Post # 75.So you KNOW of these businesses that are operating in China, AND are contributing to "the people in DC." ?
I love people who are less than aware of the world.
Mitt Romney, hard line republican, sent a lot of American jobs to China.
Of course, this doesn't much help Americans, but you get cheap goods in your shops - if anyone has a job that pays enough money to afford them.
How Mitt Romney Invested Millions in Outsourcing - Forbes
David Corn of Mother Jonesreports that “according to government documents . . . Romney, when he was in charge of Bain [Capital], invested heavily in a Chinese manufacturing company that depended on US outsourcing for its profits—and that explicitly stated that such outsourcing was crucial to its success.”
There is no evil Chinese empire, just a capitalist entity that's beating America in the economic war, assisted by this major republican figure.
