Mexico commiting an act of war (IMO)...

[dilloduck]

*sigh* this is ridiculous, after all we stole the southwest from them.

BTW IMO the minutemen are a joke.

scuse me---we were invited there and then taxed to death.

 

[OCA]

If we are serious about stemming the tide of labor used by almost every industry in America where will the labor come from at that point? Will you be willing as taxpayers to prop these industries up with taxpayer welfare? Or do you cling to the fantasy notion that Americans will pick vegetables in 110 degree heat sunup to sundown or clean crabs like they do here on the eastern shore of Maryland till their fingers bleed?

Americans bitch when they don't get MLK holiday off or its 80 degrees outside. But hey lets kick the scapegoats out!

 

[OCA]

scuse me---we were invited there and then taxed to death.

Invited where? Are you shitting me?

 

[dilloduck]

Invited where? Are you shitting me?

Check out some Texas history

 

[OCA]

Check out some Texas history

Nope, you brought it up, you give us the scoop.

 

[no1tovote4]

If we are serious about stemming the tide of labor used by almost every industry in America where will the labor come from at that point? Will you be willing as taxpayers to prop these industries up with taxpayer welfare? Or do you cling to the fantasy notion that Americans will pick vegetables in 110 degree heat sunup to sundown or clean crabs like they do here on the eastern shore of Maryland till their fingers bleed?

Americans bitch when they don't get MLK holiday off or its 80 degrees outside. But hey lets kick the scapegoats out!

Allow them to enter after they have been checked as guest workers or even as citizens, not just unchecked over a porous border when we already know that there are bad guys who would take advantage of just such a weakness.

If we cut off the border we can actually vet the people we allow into the country, thus making ourselves safer. Just assuming we need the people to work and therefore ignoring the danger accompanying it is simply not good enough.

 

[OCA]

Allow them to enter after they have been checked as guest workers or even as citizens, not just unchecked over a porous border when we already know that there are bad guys who would take advantage of just such a weakness.

If we cut off the border we can actually vet the people we allow into the country, thus making ourselves safer. Just assuming we need the people to work and therefore ignoring the danger accompanying it is simply not good enough.

I agree with that. Do you also agree that mass amnesty of illegals already in country is the only viable solution to the problem of what to with those already here?

 

[no1tovote4]

I agree with that. Do you also agree that mass amnesty of illegals already in country is the only viable solution to the problem of what to with those already here?

So long as they actually have to register somewhere. I would prefer they have to pay as well or we make some effort at giving those that came legally incentive to continue coming in that vein rather than illegally, there has to be some recognition of the fact they broke the law to come here.

If not you simply spit in the face of every person who has waited and were finally given the chance to come here legally. You basically tell them that they get nothing for their honesty of spirit other than a bag of shit handed to them with a lighter, we don't even care enough to light it ourselves.

 

[OCA]

So long as they actually have to register somewhere. I would prefer they have to pay as well or we make some effort at giving those that came legally incentive to continue coming in that vein rather than illegally, there has to be some recognition of the fact they broke the law to come here.

If not you simply spit in the face of every person who has waited and were finally given the chance to come here legally. You basically tell them that they get nothing for their honesty of spirit other than a bag of shit handed to them with a lighter, we don't even care enough to light it ourselves.

Nah their can't be stipulations added on to this, it must be done in one fell swoop! Without all the added bullshit. It really is the only logical and viable solution to the problem. Getting someone to pay or giving money to legal immigrants smacks of racism since we know that better than 9 out of 10 illegals are Mexicans, dare I say that if Germany was on our border 9 out of 10 illegals would be Germans.

 

[no1tovote4]

Nah their can't be stipulations added on to this, it must be done in one fell swoop! Without all the added bullshit. It really is the only logical and viable solution to the problem. Getting someone to pay or giving money to legal immigrants smacks of racism since we know that better than 9 out of 10 illegals are Mexicans, dare I say that if Germany was on our border 9 out of 10 illegals would be Germans.

There are many legals that have come from Mexico as well. Simply asking for a fee for the illegal entry shouldn't bee too much to demand, nor does it smack of racism only of proximity.

Anyway, it was only a suggestion. My main goal is to get the border sewn up so that we no longer have such easy access for the terrorists and other bad guys. As I said, I agree so long as they have to register and be known in order to work legally. If they do not and they are continued to be employed those that hire them must actually be sanctioned. There should be some standards, something for people to follow rather than simply giving amnesty yet not sewing up the border for good this time.

Reagan gave amnesty before, promising many of the things I ask for such as substantial sanctions against companies that hire illegals, nothing was done to stop them and no actual sanctions have been made. Silly little slaps on hands...

 

[Annie]

Jumping in here, I KNOW, I seldom do...Here is something that seems to be arguing in OCA's line, but citing the Kennedy/McCain idea that no1 is addressing. Personally, I think both are silly, but heh, that's my opinion...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-4_11_05_MK.html

April 11, 2005
Voters Favor Work-Permit Immigration Reform
By Mort Kondracke

Despite massive agitation for a restrictionist immigration policy, a new poll shows surprising support for proposals to allow foreigners and illegal immigrants to obtain work permits and earn their way to citizenship.

The poll, by GOP pollster Ed Goeas and Democrat Celinda Lake, ought to encourage President Bush to push for immigration reform against concerted opposition from radio talk show hosts and some GOP conservatives who denounce his work-permit proposals as "amnesty for law-breakers."

The poll, conducted for the pro-reform National Immigration Forum and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, shows that Americans would support reforms even more liberal than Bush's – the kind expected to be jointly proposed soon by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Bush has proposed that foreigners and illegal immigrants be allowed to obtain permits to work legally in the United States, but has left it unclear whether they would have to return to their home countries when the permits expired.

Kennedy and McCain are proposing that, after six years of legal work, law-abiding immigrants who pay a "fine" and undergo a background check would be eligible for permanent resident status (a "green card") and eventual citizenship. Their proposal also speeds up processing of the huge backlog of applications for normal immigration so that work-permit holders (including former "illegals") would not gain an advantage over those waiting in line.

The Goeas-Lake poll showed that, even after hearing strong arguments against the Kennedy-McCain reforms, 77 percent of likely voters would favor their proposal.

At the moment, political momentum on the immigration issue seems to lie with GOP restrictionists, led by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., And those who think that stricter enforcement should precede any reform.

On Feb. 10, the House voted 261-161 to pass a measure (now part of the Iraq supplemental appropriation) that establishes federal standards for state drivers licenses that are designed to deny them to illegal immigrants. The measure, backed by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., also, in the name of homeland security, restricts the ability of foreigners to gain humanitarian asylum in the United States.

Bush has been gratifyingly and even eloquently pro-immigration in his public statements, but he also needs conservative support to pass Social Security reform, which may delay or even stop his push for immigration reform.

Part of the equation, too, is a loud claque of radio and TV talk show hosts who rail against an "invasion" of foreigners flooding across "porous" U.S. borders in flagrant violation of the law. The agitation is accompanied by extensive publicity for the Arizona Minuteman movement, which was launched to block immigrants from Mexico. Bush has denounced such "vigilante" activity.

Actually, anti-immigrationists have a point: There is an invasion of illegal immigration across the US borders, estimated at about 400,000 people a year. Roughly 11 million illegals live in the United States. And the US government, despite bolstered border security and increases in the number of immigration agents, has been unable to stem the tide.

The question becomes: What should we do about it, especially when immigrants overwhelmingly arrive to take menial jobs that Americans won't do and which employers are willing to hire them for?

The Bush approach, so far not spelled out in actual legislation, is to allow foreigners and illegals in the United States to obtain temporary work permits. At a press conference with Mexican President Vicente Fox on March 8, Bush went out of his way to say, "I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship."

McCain and Kennedy are drafting legislation that McCain hopes the administration will back and that employer groups and labor unions will endorse, creating a powerful counterweight to the restrictionists. The bill will contain enhanced enforcement measures, including an electronic verification system for work permits, a limit on the number of worker permits that matches current flows of illegals, labor protections and provisions for workers to obtain green cards if they pay a fine likely to be more than $1,500.

According to the Goeas-Lake poll, immigration is not among the top concerns of the public. While only 9 percent of voters favor increasing the number of legal immigrants in the United States, 86 percent also agree that immigrants who work, pay taxes and learn English should have a way to become citizens. In addition, 91 percent agreed that "we need a controlled immigration system that would replace illegal immigration flow with a legal immigration flow."

Significant majorities said they'd be less likely to support a McCain-Kennedy-style bill if told it was an "amnesty," if it lowered US wages or if it encouraged more illegal immigration. Still, after hearing arguments on both sides, 77 percent favored the reforms.

One other argument favors regularizing immigration: It would free up police and immigration authorities to hunt criminals and terrorists, instead of chasing millions of workers who are ready, willing and able.

Someone who 'agrees' with my take:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2116601/&#amnesty

Mort Kondracke describes the forthcoming Kennedy-McCain immigration plan:

Kennedy and McCain are proposing that, after six years of legal work, law-abiding immigrants who pay a "fine" and undergo a background check would be eligible for permanent resident status (a "green card") and eventual citizenship. Their proposal also speeds up processing of the huge backlog of applications for normal immigration so that work-permit holders (including former "illegals") would not gain an advantage over those waiting in line. [Emphasis added]

Huh? Of course the former illegals would gain an advantage over those waiting in line. While those waiting in line have been having to wait in line, the illegals have had the advantage of living and working in the United States. That's why (unless the fine is so huge as to discourage participation) the effect of the Kennedy-McCain bill would seem to be to reward illegal entry. Am I missing something? 10:56 P.M. link

 

[no1tovote4]

Jumping in here, I KNOW, I seldom do...Here is something that seems to be arguing in OCA's line, but citing the Kennedy/McCain idea that no1 is addressing. Personally, I think both are silly, but heh, that's my opinion...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-4_11_05_MK.html



Someone who 'agrees' with my take:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2116601/&#amnesty

I don't actually propose that Kennedy/McCain deal. Personally I think we should require them to re-enter their own country and sign up legally like the rest. However if there are those who are unwilling to go through the inconvenience of losing our cheap labor for a time then I propose a hefty fine for entering illegally that those who would make it here legally would not have to pay.

I think it is insulting directly to everybody who worked to get here legally to simply ignore the previous laws and give a blank check for those entering illegally at this moment, and give incentive for that continued action by others. The incentive should be set to get people here to help us do the work that we supposedly would not do, at the same time making it much more difficult to enter illegally and easier to collect taxes etc from our "guest workers". Instead the proposed Amnesty simply rewards those who have entered illegally, insults those who have entered legally, and does not address the issue of illegal entry at all.