No, we are NOT building the wall.

[Porter Rockwell]

Prior to 1875 the states did have control over who came and went. Immigration / Naturalization / Citizenship was the exclusive domain of Congress. Then the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress. The problem is, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant ANY OTHER branch of government any powers (especially exclusive powers.) And so we lumped Guest Workers into the same pot as immigrants seeking permanent residence, thereby creating this flustercuck. Now, we are trying to give temporary workers the benefits and privileges of citizenship while ignoring the simplest solution.

Okay, maybe we need to turn the clock back.

In Olathe Colorado, the Veggie Growers cry their little hearts out that they don't have enough facilities for the migrant workers. In the old days, the Growers provided housing.

Those same "Farmers" complain they can't get enough workers. In the old days, they would have an employee head to the border at a entry point, pick out workers, sign them in, get them work visas, drive them back up north, house them, feed them, pay them and at the end of the season, they would put them back on the bus and drive them back to the border where they would exit the bus directly into the entry/exit point and go home to their families and homes. There was no overstaying the work visas. These were family men and women looking to feed their families in Mexico. There was no reason for them to sneak them across the border and go into hiding.

Here, in Georgia, the growers pay $11 an hour plus room and board. A couple of years ago one farmer advertised with the Georgia State Employment Service where all those who are drawing an unemployment check from the state are required to register and actively seek a job. He advertised in a local paper. He put up signs in town. He even advertised on Craigslist. He offered his last year's workers a bonus to bring someone with them.

On the day he opened for business, only half of the workers he needed showed up. A local newsman was doing a story about it for local tv news. Of those who showed, four Americans showed up. Two of those were gone before noon. The farmer could not get enough workers as the yearly quota of visas was exhausted by April. As the farmer said in the interview, he did not know how he was supposed to determine the weather and crop yield a year in advance.

He need the old option of sponsoring in people right on the border, taking responability for their welfare, transporation etc. like they use to do including housing. He could pay them minimum wage and they would work their asses off for them and be glad to go have him drive them back to the border along with thier newly aquired riches so they could go home. It seems that the employers have forgotten how do to that.

Unless you are a major corporation, that is impractical. There is nothing that prevents people, constitutionally speaking, that allows people to come through the United States. Liberty is an unalienable Right. All the federal government can logically do is regulate the flow.

If I have 1400 acres of produce then I would be considered a major corporation. Okay, not a Corporation if it is a family owned but it's large enough to be treated as such. That requires a huge (hugely to the strumpets) amount of seasonal manpower. There can be a contract or agreement setup with the Feds in order to facilitate this type of program. This means that the illegals don't have a reason to cross illegally anymore. And then we can turn ICE loose to make the illegals and those companies that pay them under the tables life a living hell. You want to stop illegal immigration, this is how it used to be done before it got so damned complicated. Sometimes the old ways are the best.

You don't get it. I AM advocating the old ways. People are so hung up on the misapplication of words and ideas that they don't understand it.

Immigration is people coming here for the purposes of permanent residence. Immigration / Naturalization / Citizenship That is in the Constitution. The term "illegal immigration" is an oxymoron since it is a contradiction in terms. It's all but impossible to be an "illegal immigrant." An individual couldn't ever pull it off.

Then, if you are trying to make liberty for all a privilege, well good luck with that. No wall is going to change the ultimate long term. Again, the courts will have to declare much of what the right wants to do to be unconstitutional. The ONLY way around that is to rescind the 14th Amendment.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

So I didn't think your post that wasn't bolded had "relevance" but you thought that posting the same thing again...only this time bolding it would change my mind? LOL REALLY?

I'm not trying to change your mind. You post your facts; I'll post mine. If there is a point I want to stress or bring attention I can bold it. People do it verbally, so why do you have a problem with it?

A couple is arguing and one person stresses the word never. Verbally, they put special emphasis on it. So do I. I'm not bolding everything I say or trying to double its font size, mix colors and some of the more elaborate stuff you see.

I quoted a source. You quoted it for what you thought were facts in your favor, ignoring the relevant facts of my citation. I brought it to the attention of other posters here that so they could see the FACTS I relied on. In the instant case:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.

That is what the article I quoted says. It is a fact and if you dispute it, you should find something in the Constitution to counter it with. If not, we move forward. You don't have to believe me; you don't have to accept the facts; you say you don't see it that way, If you cannot sustain your position, I'm content to allow those on ALL sides of the issue to decide on the merits of the argument presented.

Meanwhile, while you and I are arguing over non-essentials, there has to be that one guy out there scratching his head, asking even if my facts are accurate, what difference does it make? But, I suspect that even you MIGHT know the answer to that. THAT is the reason we're in this side argument. The Declaration of Independence says that "truths are self evident." There is no requirement that you accept them. AND, you're not the only person on this thread. But, back to the point. A German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once observed:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

You have violently opposed my views; lied about them; misrepresented them; ridiculed them. You have shown FEAR that a position you don't understand might actually be considered. Not once have I done the same to you. IF the Constitution gave a power to the United States Supreme Court you claim it does, you should find some basis in fact for it. But, if the move is unconstitutional, you should oppose it, not embrace it, no matter what the promised benefit to you is.

I "violently" opposed your views? What did I do...hold a gun to their heads? I disagreed with you and you called me a motherfucking liar and a prick! So tell me, Porter...who's the one who "violently" disagrees with others on this board...you or I?

I understand the why people bold things...what I don't understand is why you think making an argument that doesn't impress others will suddenly do so because you put the same argument in BOLD? That's pathetically stupid!

Are you really that much of a megalomaniac? Do you think YOU are the only poster that reads my posts? You really think God chose YOU to read my posts and report to other posters what I just said?

Let us suppose that we were all in a group in a room - all of us physically present and you opened up on me like you did with that first post you did on this thread. What do you think would have been the most logical outcome of such a meeting?

You use too many words to say so little.

Feel free to put me on ignore. The post has nothing to do with you anyway. I'm sorry, but I thought this was a discussion board. Is it really Twitter? Okay, that is your reading limit. More than half a dozen sentences and what's left of your thinking process is fried.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I'm not trying to change your mind. You post your facts; I'll post mine. If there is a point I want to stress or bring attention I can bold it. People do it verbally, so why do you have a problem with it?

A couple is arguing and one person stresses the word never. Verbally, they put special emphasis on it. So do I. I'm not bolding everything I say or trying to double its font size, mix colors and some of the more elaborate stuff you see.

I quoted a source. You quoted it for what you thought were facts in your favor, ignoring the relevant facts of my citation. I brought it to the attention of other posters here that so they could see the FACTS I relied on. In the instant case:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.

That is what the article I quoted says. It is a fact and if you dispute it, you should find something in the Constitution to counter it with. If not, we move forward. You don't have to believe me; you don't have to accept the facts; you say you don't see it that way, If you cannot sustain your position, I'm content to allow those on ALL sides of the issue to decide on the merits of the argument presented.

Meanwhile, while you and I are arguing over non-essentials, there has to be that one guy out there scratching his head, asking even if my facts are accurate, what difference does it make? But, I suspect that even you MIGHT know the answer to that. THAT is the reason we're in this side argument. The Declaration of Independence says that "truths are self evident." There is no requirement that you accept them. AND, you're not the only person on this thread. But, back to the point. A German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once observed:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

You have violently opposed my views; lied about them; misrepresented them; ridiculed them. You have shown FEAR that a position you don't understand might actually be considered. Not once have I done the same to you. IF the Constitution gave a power to the United States Supreme Court you claim it does, you should find some basis in fact for it. But, if the move is unconstitutional, you should oppose it, not embrace it, no matter what the promised benefit to you is.

I "violently" opposed your views? What did I do...hold a gun to their heads? I disagreed with you and you called me a motherfucking liar and a prick! So tell me, Porter...who's the one who "violently" disagrees with others on this board...you or I?

I understand the why people bold things...what I don't understand is why you think making an argument that doesn't impress others will suddenly do so because you put the same argument in BOLD? That's pathetically stupid!

Are you really that much of a megalomaniac? Do you think YOU are the only poster that reads my posts? You really think God chose YOU to read my posts and report to other posters what I just said?

Let us suppose that we were all in a group in a room - all of us physically present and you opened up on me like you did with that first post you did on this thread. What do you think would have been the most logical outcome of such a meeting?

You can lie all you want. I enter a thread and play nice. Read this entire thread, not just the posts you like to keep cherry picking. Be honest. Read the thread. How long does it take before the build the wall extremists come unglued and start hurling accusations? WHO was the first of any side to start that tone on this thread? You jump into the midst of a heated battle, start LYING about me and then expect you should consider yourself a victim???? Are you kidding or are you really that stupid? You're no victim. You had a duty to read the thread before interjecting your views, aiming a lie at someone that is already under attack.

Yes, Oldstyle, when you jumped into the fray, you became part and parcel of those violently opposed to allowing me the luxury of posting facts here. Adding insult to injury, you will make every post from here on out about YOU. You don't have the stomach for the truth. You are a Democrat that thinks if you filibuster the personality contest to death, you can avoid the FACTS. You're counting on the mass hysteria to keep us from discussing what the actual OP started this thread about. From this point, forward it will be me v. you in your version of a popularity contest. Nothing however will erase the fact that your first words directed at me were, in fact, a lie.

Will you now move forward and discuss the OP? I think not. I think you'll come back, unable to admit that what you did was wrong and you got pretty much what you deserved. You'll want me to be the bad guy because in your warped thinking, this is all about YOU and your fragile ego. The next thread you participate on, you should have this little piece of advice:

"He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him" Proverbs 18: 13

Next time, read the thread BEFORE embarrassing yourself.

Let's see...if we were sitting in that room...you made a statement...I responded by saying I didn't agree with you...and you called me a "mother fucking liar" and a "prick"? They'd be calling an ambulance for someone and my guess is that it wouldn't be me! Here's the thing, Porter...if some other person gave you a hard time before I got there...you've got no excuse at all treating me that way...especially accusing ME of being violent towards you when it was you that lost your shit!

I'm a Democrat? Wow...did you ever guess wrong on that one, Sparky!

All I can say is, it's too bad that we were not in a room and you tried to lie about me when you don't know me. My "shit" was lost before you came onto this thread. You did yourself NO favors by lying about me with your first post. You might want to stop and think before pecking your keyboard the next time.

You may want to rethink your line of thought there chief. If you walk into an ongoing fight and start taking sides, LYING about one of the participants, things might not work out the way you think they will. When Republicans lie and do so knowingly, they are generally RINOs.

I don't have you pegged wrong. I told you this was a thread about a silly wall, but you would derail the thread to try and have a personality contest. Instead of letting it go and moving on with the relevant conversation, you're back proving me right again. Democrat. If you weren't you could move forward with the wall conversation and save the chest thumping for PM. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your ego on this thread. Might as well make it a private matter. Give the posters a break.

I'm not a Democrat, Porter. Your continuing to call me one simply illustrates how clueless you really are!

And, for you to suggest that I think the United States Supreme Court is not authorized to interpret the law shows how absolutely clueless YOU are.

Feel free to post something relative to the OP and we can discuss it.

 

[LilOlLady]

Dumbass Nancy Pelosi argues that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S. ... More reason to build the damn wall. If gun violence is a national emergency so is the border because 2000 guns are smuggled across the border into Mexico each day. The reason we have illegal border crossing is because of the gun violence crime in Mexico.
Mexican National Security Commissioner Renato Sales has revealed that 2,000 guns manufactured in the United States are smuggled to Mexican cartels and criminals on a daily basis, significantly increasing violence and unrest in the Central American country.
'2,000 US-made guns smuggled into Mexico everyday'
'Open border is the cause and effect for the crime in this country and in Mexico. Secure border protects us and Mexico. Build the fucking wall. asap

Nancy Pelosi has duly noted that if Trump has a national emergency over immigration, the next liberal president can outlaw firearms and declare a national emergency due to a mass shooting. If that happens, we can thank you for the assault on the Second Amendment.

Firearms and illegal aliens unrelated. In 1791 the right to "bear arms" is "an idiomatic expression that means 'to serve as a soldier, do military service'". Not mass murder by a nut. Illegal aliens do a lot more harm to this country and people other than murder.

Language Log » What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?

Actually, guns and illegal aliens are related in the sense that both need to be regulated. 2nd Amendment does not allow everyone to bear arms and our immigration laws do not allow everyone who wants to enter the right to enter. National emergency on the border is not to stop all immigration. Regulates who is allowed to enter and regulated who is allowed to carry a gun.

 

[TrumpisDaResistance]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Okay, maybe we need to turn the clock back.

In Olathe Colorado, the Veggie Growers cry their little hearts out that they don't have enough facilities for the migrant workers. In the old days, the Growers provided housing.

Those same "Farmers" complain they can't get enough workers. In the old days, they would have an employee head to the border at a entry point, pick out workers, sign them in, get them work visas, drive them back up north, house them, feed them, pay them and at the end of the season, they would put them back on the bus and drive them back to the border where they would exit the bus directly into the entry/exit point and go home to their families and homes. There was no overstaying the work visas. These were family men and women looking to feed their families in Mexico. There was no reason for them to sneak them across the border and go into hiding.

Here, in Georgia, the growers pay $11 an hour plus room and board. A couple of years ago one farmer advertised with the Georgia State Employment Service where all those who are drawing an unemployment check from the state are required to register and actively seek a job. He advertised in a local paper. He put up signs in town. He even advertised on Craigslist. He offered his last year's workers a bonus to bring someone with them.

On the day he opened for business, only half of the workers he needed showed up. A local newsman was doing a story about it for local tv news. Of those who showed, four Americans showed up. Two of those were gone before noon. The farmer could not get enough workers as the yearly quota of visas was exhausted by April. As the farmer said in the interview, he did not know how he was supposed to determine the weather and crop yield a year in advance.

He need the old option of sponsoring in people right on the border, taking responability for their welfare, transporation etc. like they use to do including housing. He could pay them minimum wage and they would work their asses off for them and be glad to go have him drive them back to the border along with thier newly aquired riches so they could go home. It seems that the employers have forgotten how do to that.

Unless you are a major corporation, that is impractical. There is nothing that prevents people, constitutionally speaking, that allows people to come through the United States. Liberty is an unalienable Right. All the federal government can logically do is regulate the flow.

If I have 1400 acres of produce then I would be considered a major corporation. Okay, not a Corporation if it is a family owned but it's large enough to be treated as such. That requires a huge (hugely to the strumpets) amount of seasonal manpower. There can be a contract or agreement setup with the Feds in order to facilitate this type of program. This means that the illegals don't have a reason to cross illegally anymore. And then we can turn ICE loose to make the illegals and those companies that pay them under the tables life a living hell. You want to stop illegal immigration, this is how it used to be done before it got so damned complicated. Sometimes the old ways are the best.

You don't get it. I AM advocating the old ways. People are so hung up on the misapplication of words and ideas that they don't understand it.

Immigration is people coming here for the purposes of permanent residence. Immigration / Naturalization / Citizenship That is in the Constitution. The term "illegal immigration" is an oxymoron since it is a contradiction in terms. It's all but impossible to be an "illegal immigrant." An individual couldn't ever pull it off.

Then, if you are trying to make liberty for all a privilege, well good luck with that. No wall is going to change the ultimate long term. Again, the courts will have to declare much of what the right wants to do to be unconstitutional. The ONLY way around that is to rescind the 14th Amendment.

I do have a problem with the 14th as well. The term Anchor Babies should not exist. I believe that one or both parents should have to be a Citizen for the child to be considered a citizen.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Dumbass Nancy Pelosi argues that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S. ... More reason to build the damn wall. If gun violence is a national emergency so is the border because 2000 guns are smuggled across the border into Mexico each day. The reason we have illegal border crossing is because of the gun violence crime in Mexico.
Mexican National Security Commissioner Renato Sales has revealed that 2,000 guns manufactured in the United States are smuggled to Mexican cartels and criminals on a daily basis, significantly increasing violence and unrest in the Central American country.
'2,000 US-made guns smuggled into Mexico everyday'
'Open border is the cause and effect for the crime in this country and in Mexico. Secure border protects us and Mexico. Build the fucking wall. asap

Nancy Pelosi has duly noted that if Trump has a national emergency over immigration, the next liberal president can outlaw firearms and declare a national emergency due to a mass shooting. If that happens, we can thank you for the assault on the Second Amendment.

Firearms and illegal aliens unrelated. In 1791 the right to "bear arms" is "an idiomatic expression that means 'to serve as a soldier, do military service'". Not mass murder by a nut. Illegal aliens do a lot more harm to this country and people other than murder.

Language Log » What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?

Actually, guns and illegal aliens are related in the sense that both need to be regulated. 2nd Amendment does not allow everyone to bear arms and our immigration laws do not allow everyone who wants to enter the right to enter. National emergency on the border is not to stop all immigration. Regulates who is allowed to enter and regulated who is allowed to carry a gun.

Your ignorance of our Constitution is absolutely astounding. You have ZERO knowledge of what the term Rule of Law means; you cannot tell the difference between unalienable Rights and privileges; have never studied the differences between power and authority.

Without that baseline of knowledge, you might as well burn the Constitution because you are, most likely, one of those who backed George W. Bush when he said the Constitution wasn't nothing except a G.D. piece of paper.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Here, in Georgia, the growers pay $11 an hour plus room and board. A couple of years ago one farmer advertised with the Georgia State Employment Service where all those who are drawing an unemployment check from the state are required to register and actively seek a job. He advertised in a local paper. He put up signs in town. He even advertised on Craigslist. He offered his last year's workers a bonus to bring someone with them.

On the day he opened for business, only half of the workers he needed showed up. A local newsman was doing a story about it for local tv news. Of those who showed, four Americans showed up. Two of those were gone before noon. The farmer could not get enough workers as the yearly quota of visas was exhausted by April. As the farmer said in the interview, he did not know how he was supposed to determine the weather and crop yield a year in advance.

He need the old option of sponsoring in people right on the border, taking responability for their welfare, transporation etc. like they use to do including housing. He could pay them minimum wage and they would work their asses off for them and be glad to go have him drive them back to the border along with thier newly aquired riches so they could go home. It seems that the employers have forgotten how do to that.

Unless you are a major corporation, that is impractical. There is nothing that prevents people, constitutionally speaking, that allows people to come through the United States. Liberty is an unalienable Right. All the federal government can logically do is regulate the flow.

If I have 1400 acres of produce then I would be considered a major corporation. Okay, not a Corporation if it is a family owned but it's large enough to be treated as such. That requires a huge (hugely to the strumpets) amount of seasonal manpower. There can be a contract or agreement setup with the Feds in order to facilitate this type of program. This means that the illegals don't have a reason to cross illegally anymore. And then we can turn ICE loose to make the illegals and those companies that pay them under the tables life a living hell. You want to stop illegal immigration, this is how it used to be done before it got so damned complicated. Sometimes the old ways are the best.

You don't get it. I AM advocating the old ways. People are so hung up on the misapplication of words and ideas that they don't understand it.

Immigration is people coming here for the purposes of permanent residence. Immigration / Naturalization / Citizenship That is in the Constitution. The term "illegal immigration" is an oxymoron since it is a contradiction in terms. It's all but impossible to be an "illegal immigrant." An individual couldn't ever pull it off.

Then, if you are trying to make liberty for all a privilege, well good luck with that. No wall is going to change the ultimate long term. Again, the courts will have to declare much of what the right wants to do to be unconstitutional. The ONLY way around that is to rescind the 14th Amendment.

I do have a problem with the 14th as well. The term Anchor Babies should not exist. I believe that one or both parents should have to be a Citizen for the child to be considered a citizen.

This immigration issue will be the downfall of America. It intersects with all other issues. The 14th Amendment exacerbates the whole thing.

In the Preamble of the Constitution it says:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Notice the part I bolded. The posterity of the Constitution were members of the white race. As evidence of that, the Constitution went into force in 1789. Then, in 1790 we had our first Naturalization law. A relevant part of it reads as follows:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof..."

naturalization laws 1790-1795

In 1857 the Dred Scott decision ruled that the Constitution only protected the rights of whites and blacks could not become citizens. Add to that we had anti-miscegenation laws and you're looking at a nation that was built on the twin pillars of the Christian religion and the white race. Now, all of that is unimportant on the world scene given that China, Japan, North Korea, Zimbabwe are pretty much the same on those counts. But, we make all manner of pretexts not to have the same luxury for whites. The 14th Amendment made citizens out of people who now want to bankrupt America over reparations. The 14th Amendment absolutely guarantees liberty to all persons (as differentiated from citizens.) Add birthright citizenship to the mix and you don't need a degree from Harvard to see where America is going.

Immigration laws cannot fix that - neither can any wall.

 

[LilOlLady]

As long as Mexico is a criminal country we are never going to be secure no matter how many walls and security we have. Relative secure us all we can hope for. Mexico needs a house cleaning beginning with the government. As most of the central and South American countries are. But we can be relatively secure if we had the people in our government to do it with enforcing our immigration laws, no more automatic birthright citizenship and mandatory E-Verify. We are wasting our time talking about it. Invading the middle east and spending $5.9 trillion has not made us safer. Give Trump the measly $5billion or not. Democrats or Republicans we are screwed. Without even having an Orgasm. I will probably get kicked off the forum now.

 

[Mr Natural]

Those crops are not going to pick themselves

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Those crops are not going to pick themselves

Then we need to go back to the old way of the Employer taking a bus to the border entry point, picking his workers, guarenteeing that he will be responsible for them, getting them work visas, transporting them to his Farm, housing them, feeding them, paying them, working them. At the end of the season, he puts them back on the bus and takes them back to the border entry point and helps to process them back through so they can take their new found riches back to mexico to their families. Simple as that.

BTW, the Illegal Immigrants of today are primarily NOT Mexican. It appears that the US has helped Mexico's economy enough that it's easier to make a living in Mexico. What we need to do is to work with the other southern countries to get them that way as well. We have done that through Foreign aid attached to certain changes that needed to be made. That Program was stopped by the Trump Admin. Don't make those changes and they don't get the foreign aid. Trump's admin also stopped the Citizens of Southern nations from applying for citizenship at the US Embassies in country. That means that the only way they can apply for citizenship is to come to the entry point on the mexican/us border. Hence the huge and continuous Caravans. Mexico loves those caravans though. They have more work than they have workers and bleed off good workers from them. But even Mexico is being overtaxed recently by the numbers and can no longer absorb the excess.

The "National Emergency" has been manufactured and can be cured not by dumping in hundreds of billions of dollars on the Border but by investing in the Southern Countries to make them do certain changes where we won't have thousands trying to force their way into the US at the border crossings and demanding citizenship and hardship hearings.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

As long as Mexico is a criminal country we are never going to be secure no matter how many walls and security we have. Relative secure us all we can hope for. Mexico needs a house cleaning beginning with the government. As most of the central and South American countries are. But we can be relatively secure if we had the people in our government to do it with enforcing our immigration laws, no more automatic birthright citizenship and mandatory E-Verify. We are wasting our time talking about it. Invading the middle east and spending $5.9 trillion has not made us safer. Give Trump the measly $5billion or not. Democrats or Republicans we are screwed. Without even having an Orgasm. I will probably get kicked off the forum now.

As long as you keep being humorous and doing more damage to the right than the left can do to them, I'd say the powers that be will always welcome you.

You keep blaming Mexico, but the United States consumes over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply. Who is twisting the arms of the American people to be the world's most reliable drug users? We lead the world in drug use. All the countries COMBINED can't touch us.

Mexico is the most criminal country in the world? Surely you jest. The United States has more people in prison than any nation on this planet! Adding insult to injury, for every one drug addict in a treatment facility, we have more than ten drug addicts in prison, their crimes usually a result of their addiction. I suppose in your convoluted mind Mexico is in charge of of getting kids hooked on drugs?

Are you sure that the drug problem is not the result of parents, the schools / government, doctors / Big Pharma getting children hooked?

You want inapplicable immigration laws, written by liberals, to be enforced and you want to enforce National Socialist style National ID.

I understand you perfectly. Screw the Rule of Law. Forget the original intent of the Constitution. Mexico is to blame for everything. Let's let the POLICE STATE run wild.

 

[LilOlLady]

Those crops are not going to pick themselves

They should be working legally under the Bracero Program iniated on August 4, 1942, when the United States signed the Mexican Farm Labor Agreement with Mexico. This gives them a fair wage and protects them. Majority of the farm workers are in the country legally. In any of the US jobs, foreign workers should be working legally. No one is complaining about Mexicans doing farm work. No one is forcing them to work on farms. But the majority of illegal aliens are not working on farms. They are in the inner cities taking jobs and lowering wages from Americans that cannot do the work for the low wages and put up with the shit from employers. Go after employers who are addicted to cheap foreign labor. Wages will go up and Americans will take those jobs.

 

[LilOlLady]

Those crops are not going to pick themselves

Then we need to go back to the old way of the Employer taking a bus to the border entry point, picking his workers, guarenteeing that he will be responsible for them, getting them work visas, transporting them to his Farm, housing them, feeding them, paying them, working them. At the end of the season, he puts them back on the bus and takes them back to the border entry point and helps to process them back through so they can take their new found riches back to mexico to their families. Simple as that.

BTW, the Illegal Immigrants of today are primarily NOT Mexican. It appears that the US has helped Mexico's economy enough that it's easier to make a living in Mexico. What we need to do is to work with the other southern countries to get them that way as well. We have done that through Foreign aid attached to certain changes that needed to be made. That Program was stopped by the Trump Admin. Don't make those changes and they don't get the foreign aid. Trump's admin also stopped the Citizens of Southern nations from applying for citizenship at the US Embassies in country. That means that the only way they can apply for citizenship is to come to the entry point on the mexican/us border. Hence the huge and continuous Caravans. Mexico loves those caravans though. They have more work than they have workers and bleed off good workers from them. But even Mexico is being overtaxed recently by the numbers and can no longer absorb the excess.

The "National Emergency" has been manufactured and can be cured not by dumping in hundreds of billions of dollars on the Border but by investing in the Southern Countries to make them do certain changes where we won't have thousands trying to force their way into the US at the border crossings and demanding citizenship and hardship hearings.

No one believes your BS. Housing and feeding them? LMAO. No employer housed and feed me when I was working. The PAID me. 8 million undocumented workers pick American fruit, etc. Today 90 percent of California’s farmworkers hail from Mexico

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Those crops are not going to pick themselves

They should be working legally under the Bracero Program iniated on August 4, 1942, when the United States signed the Mexican Farm Labor Agreement with Mexico. This gives them a fair wage and protects them. Majority of the farm workers are in the country legally. In any of the US jobs, foreign workers should be working legally. No one is complaining about Mexicans doing farm work. No one is forcing them to work on farms. But the majority of illegal aliens are not working on farms. They are in the inner cities taking jobs and lowering wages from Americans that cannot do the work for the low wages and put up with the shit from employers. Go after employers who are addicted to cheap foreign labor. Wages will go up and Americans will take those jobs.

That is pure speculation with no basis in fact. In 1953 the government floated this plan they called Operation Wetback. In this failed program, every Hispanic without papers was forced back across the border the next year.

Funny thing happened: In less than five years the unemployment rate DOUBLED!

The major problem in relying on National Socialist talking points is that they want to sell you some nonsensical idea without you asking the all important question: What is the counter-argument to what I'm promoting? In this instance, you keep coming here without a clue as to what the counter argument is. The side you rely on is all about stressing the cost. Does your checkbook or online banking account only have one side to the ledger sheet or does it have two?

In real life, there are TWO sides to the ledger sheet. What the side you rely fails to tell you is the contributions that end up on the OTHER side of the ledger sheet. I'd like to tell you what a FEW of those are:

1) The foreigners not only work for less, but they produce significantly more. That greater output makes the price of goods and services lower so you get lower prices

2) When the foreigners are working they are generating income for their communities. Landlords make money, stores sell more (as Hispanics tend to have bigger families than backward Americans)

3) The poor who might lose all they have benefit because Americans are into ripping each other off. Case in point:

I underwent major surgery. The deductibles, medicine, living off 80 percent of my paycheck, etc. were beyond devastating. A week after surgery, I had a overflow valve go out on my water heater. So, I call in Bubba the plumber with his union prices and gas guzzling van. I had already bought the necessary part. All this POS had to do was swap out the part.

He and the other plumber retreated back to their van, emerging almost half an hour later with an estimate. They had already charged me $40 to come out and give an "estimate." The estimate: $245. I gave the man his $40 and said "you have exactly 40 seconds to be off my property." Then I got a guy off Craigslist. He comes over, looks at the valve and says, "let me get my stuff off the truck." While he did that I hooked up a water hose to the water heater and began draining it. The guy comes down the stairs, flips off the breaker and in under 15 minutes, he has changed the valve. He flips on the breaker and turns the knob to the water on. He takes his stuff back to his truck and then says "does $30 sound okay?" Honestly here: do you think I gave a rat's ass as to whether or not that guy had your permission to be here? He had mine.

If you think that people in my community would run the Hispanics out given this situation, you're dumber than a box of rocks. Americans consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we have more drug addicts than anywhere else. Get those people's heads out of their ass, tell them there are jobs out there, and then get back to me.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Those crops are not going to pick themselves

Then we need to go back to the old way of the Employer taking a bus to the border entry point, picking his workers, guarenteeing that he will be responsible for them, getting them work visas, transporting them to his Farm, housing them, feeding them, paying them, working them. At the end of the season, he puts them back on the bus and takes them back to the border entry point and helps to process them back through so they can take their new found riches back to mexico to their families. Simple as that.

BTW, the Illegal Immigrants of today are primarily NOT Mexican. It appears that the US has helped Mexico's economy enough that it's easier to make a living in Mexico. What we need to do is to work with the other southern countries to get them that way as well. We have done that through Foreign aid attached to certain changes that needed to be made. That Program was stopped by the Trump Admin. Don't make those changes and they don't get the foreign aid. Trump's admin also stopped the Citizens of Southern nations from applying for citizenship at the US Embassies in country. That means that the only way they can apply for citizenship is to come to the entry point on the mexican/us border. Hence the huge and continuous Caravans. Mexico loves those caravans though. They have more work than they have workers and bleed off good workers from them. But even Mexico is being overtaxed recently by the numbers and can no longer absorb the excess.

The "National Emergency" has been manufactured and can be cured not by dumping in hundreds of billions of dollars on the Border but by investing in the Southern Countries to make them do certain changes where we won't have thousands trying to force their way into the US at the border crossings and demanding citizenship and hardship hearings.

No one believes your BS. Housing and feeding them? LMAO. No employer housed and feed me when I was working. The PAID me. 8 million undocumented workers pick American fruit, etc. Today 90 percent of California’s farmworkers hail from Mexico

"Because of the farm labor shortage, many farms across the country are relying more heavily on workers from Mexico, brought in through the H2A temporary visa program. The workers earn $12.75 an hour, at minimum, plus transportation and housing."

'They're Scared': Immigration Fears Exacerbate Migrant Farmworker Shortage

Who in the Hell is stopping Americans from claiming these jobs? It's a rhetorical question. The government gives away welfare as if it were as simple as picking money out of thin air.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Those crops are not going to pick themselves

Then we need to go back to the old way of the Employer taking a bus to the border entry point, picking his workers, guarenteeing that he will be responsible for them, getting them work visas, transporting them to his Farm, housing them, feeding them, paying them, working them. At the end of the season, he puts them back on the bus and takes them back to the border entry point and helps to process them back through so they can take their new found riches back to mexico to their families. Simple as that.

BTW, the Illegal Immigrants of today are primarily NOT Mexican. It appears that the US has helped Mexico's economy enough that it's easier to make a living in Mexico. What we need to do is to work with the other southern countries to get them that way as well. We have done that through Foreign aid attached to certain changes that needed to be made. That Program was stopped by the Trump Admin. Don't make those changes and they don't get the foreign aid. Trump's admin also stopped the Citizens of Southern nations from applying for citizenship at the US Embassies in country. That means that the only way they can apply for citizenship is to come to the entry point on the mexican/us border. Hence the huge and continuous Caravans. Mexico loves those caravans though. They have more work than they have workers and bleed off good workers from them. But even Mexico is being overtaxed recently by the numbers and can no longer absorb the excess.

The "National Emergency" has been manufactured and can be cured not by dumping in hundreds of billions of dollars on the Border but by investing in the Southern Countries to make them do certain changes where we won't have thousands trying to force their way into the US at the border crossings and demanding citizenship and hardship hearings.

No one believes your BS. Housing and feeding them? LMAO. No employer housed and feed me when I was working. The PAID me. 8 million undocumented workers pick American fruit, etc. Today 90 percent of California’s farmworkers hail from Mexico

You had a home and worked close to your home. And you were paid more than minimum wage. Allowances need to be made for those that come up from Mexico "Legally" through the guest worker program. In lieu of a higher than minimum wage, other things can make up for that. The problem is, the farmers have stopped giving those perks and still demand that they work for minimum wage. Not going to happen. Around here, housing doesn't happen either but the wages far exceed minimum wage for seasonal workers and they seem to be making a nice tidy profit. And Whites ARE taking those jobs as well as Seasonal Mexican Workers on Green Cards. The Mexicans on Green cards make Minimum Wage are are offered housing on the same Farm or Orchard. The reason the higher wages for those that are legal is that they can't get enough legal immigrant workers so they have to pay a higher wage for locals. But they end up with to entirely different pay scales and perks for both groups. They would like to have one or the other but they can't get enough workers from either group so they need both. Again, they forgot the method that used to used where they would send a bus to the border crossing and sponsor workers and then return them at the end of the season and pay them lower pay but give them perks to make up for it.

By instagating this program again, more and more will show up at the border, be processed and then leave their families in Mexico and return to their families at the end of the season. That takes care of the Mexicans. But it doesn't take care of the ones coming up from further south. That's an entirely different problem.

The US worked with Mexico to get their manufacturing base up to a point where most Mexicans are offered jobs that enable them to at least make a living. In fact, they have more jobs in areas than they have workers to do the job. This is why the Mexican Government offers jobs to many of the people coming up from the southern countries. We used a carrot and stick on Mexico and it paid off. You do this and we give you X dollars for Foreign Aid or Economic Aid. You don't do this and we don't.

The method was cut under Trump since he claims it doesn't work and just wastes money. It's a long term solution and time has to pass for it to work. It took about 20 years. You will notice that the trend of Mexican illegals went down year after year during that time. It wasn't a wall. It was Mexico putting their people to work with enough pay to live. He need to get that system back online for the other southern countries and be even more aggressive about it. Let's face it, paying a few million if foreign aid to make a country self sufficient and more Democratic is a lot cheaper than the"Claimed" Illegal Immigrant support we have now. It's no longer Mexicans that are the problem.

 

[MaryL]

We don't need a border wall. nope. What we do Need, apparently escapes Trump. A national identity card. Tied to DNA. Fingerprints, the whole nine yards. if you can't prove your status then you ...shh...cant get a job. Or housing, or exist here legally. And then the feds can legally remove funding to states that ignore enforcing immigration laws. That would be the common sense way to approach this issue.

 

[Slyhunter]

We don't need a border wall. nope. What we do Need, apparently escapes Trump. A national identity card. Tied to DNA. Fingerprints, the whole nine yards. if you can't prove your status then you ...shh...cant get a job. Or housing, or exist here legally. And then the feds can legally remove funding to states that ignore enforcing immigration laws. That would be the common sense way to approach this issue.

It'd have to be free or it will be ruled discriminatory.

 

[MaryL]

We don't need a border wall. nope. What we do Need, apparently escapes Trump. A national identity card. Tied to DNA. Fingerprints, the whole nine yards. if you can't prove your status then you ...shh...cant get a job. Or housing, or exist here legally. And then the feds can legally remove funding to states that ignore enforcing immigration laws. That would be the common sense way to approach this issue.

It'd have to be free or it will be ruled discriminatory.

Laws inherently discriminate, that's their purpose. Even on this board, you cant say certain words, because they are banned. I think it's fair to expect people that want to live here, be expected to accept legal immigration standards. And those that hire them, doubly so. The Constitution says no one is above the law. Not even immigration law. Sanctuary states violate the constitution, thence are unconstitutional , aren't they? Is there a constitutional lawyer in the room? Can states just ignore federal laws like this?