Immigration, or illegal entry?

[Johnd]

Hey, leave the ******** alone. I still want my fresh produce!
I do not think using deragatory comments about one's race is really necessary-Admin

majorloser: I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but I just can't resist:

1) We'll all still have fresh produce no matter what we do with illegal immigrants; and,
2) Illegal immigrants are not entitled to be "left alone."

 

[shokhead]

It doesnt matter what we want,they dont want to hear it.

They want what was taken from them,the Southwest.
They want there kids to have there college ed paid for.
They want at a snap of our fingers to become leagal after breaking our law.
They dont want to learn english.
They dont want to be sent back to come here the right way.

Please,name another country that would put up with this yet the USA is evil.

 

[Johnd]

So is the building of 370 miles of additional border fence and the placement of 6,000 National Guardsmen on our southern border:

1) Enough to solve the illegal immigration problem?;
2) A band aid, a mere political gesture that will not begin to solve this growing problem?; and,
3) Are the minutemen helping solve the problem, or exacerbating it? Do citizens have a right to passively patrol our southern border provided they do not break any laws or infringe on anyone's human rights?

 

[Matt34]

Well, from what I've gathered the NG are going down there for nothing more than logistics and support, there will be no active "patroling". So the answer to your first two questions, no.

I think the minutemen have every right to do what they are doing as long as it stays passive. Mexico and the bleeding heart liberals would like you to think what they are doing is breaking the law. Last time I checked Americans had the right walk on public land with binos and radios. There is a group out of Nogales(U.S side) that have meetings right down the street where I live, though I am not able to attend due to a command directive from our chain of command.

 

[shokhead]

So is the building of 370 miles of additional border fence and the placement of 6,000 National Guardsmen on our southern border:

1) Enough to solve the illegal immigration problem?;
2) A band aid, a mere political gesture that will not begin to solve this growing problem?; and,
3) Are the minutemen helping solve the problem, or exacerbating it? Do citizens have a right to passively patrol our southern border provided they do not break any laws or infringe on anyone's human rights?

Its a start,no matter what the reason.

 

[Johnd]

A start?...no doubt. The reason?...to alleviate the problem. Any rational proposals to further this start so that we do not fall victim to the the plight of unfettered immigration as did the French?

 

[ForMiseri]

Screw em'

The illegal alien problem is so completely out of contol! Once again in one of our local city newspapers, "The Hazleton Standard Speaker" if anyone is interested in some of the articles I pulled up by typing in Dominicans on their back issue search, There is a whole list of horrific crimes detailed in the paper. The latest this past week is about 2 men from the Dominican Republic here illegaly shot and killed a Hazleton native. Further one of the pair is wanted for murder in NYC. Another article reveals sexual assault charges. These scumbags have RIGHTS? Please

 

[majorloser]

majorloser: I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but I just can't resist:

1) We'll all still have fresh produce no matter what we do with illegal immigrants; and,
2) Illegal immigrants are not entitled to be "left alone."

And who do you think will work the fields? Whether you want to admit it or not, migrant farm workers are mostly Mexican. Without them the cost of your produce would skyrocket.

I obviously don't think they can be left alone but I'm also quite aware how significant their contribution to our economy is.

Admin, lighten up and watch a little Carlos Mencia!

 

[annunaki]

If our welfare system was setup as more of a bonus system rather than giving away free money we would have plenty of people to do the lower wage jobs.

Able bodied "welfare" recipients should have to work for their money. In doing so they would be building work ethic and skills, they could also earn hours of free education as well. They would be able to do all of the so called undesirable jobs. They would be doing what people used to do in this country before welfare, and they would get even more.

Currently we are rewarding laziness. We are making laziness seem better everytime more money is thrown at welfare programs and the like.

 

[shokhead]

Yep,welfare would let others work if it was limited.

 

[gmichael]

Too many people getting a free ride. If they were put to work we'd "kill two birds with one stone."

 

[Johnd]

And who do you think will work the fields? Whether you want to admit it or not, migrant farm workers are mostly Mexican. Without them the cost of your produce would skyrocket.

There is no proof produce prices would skyrocket. They may go up 20%-30%. The choice between paying an extra $5.00-$10.00 a week for produce and having tens of millions of illegal immigrants in the country is an easy one for me. Especially with the argument of "skyrocketing produce prices". That is not very far sighted considering the costs incurred because of the illegal immigrants.

 

[Johnd]

Too many people getting a free ride. If they were put to work we'd "kill two birds with one stone."

Yes. Why not put welfare recipients as well as UI claimants to work, if not for just 10-20 hours per week, so as to earn that money?

 

[Johnd]

Social security number/work verification law passed.

A law requiring employers to submit social security numbers of work applicants to a national database passed the Senate yesterday. The system (setup by Homeland Security) will then notify the employer within three days whether or not the employee can work. If not, the employee must be fired. It's about time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/washington/24immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


From that same article comes the following quote:

"Lawmakers defeated a measure, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would have legalized all illegal immigrants, regardless of how long they have lived here. They also voted down an amendment to toughen workplace and safety standards and another to help refugees whose resettlement here has been delayed because their indirect support for armed rebels opposed to their repressive governments has put them in technical violation of American antiterrorism laws."

 

[10010011]

A law requiring employers to submit social security numbers of work applicants to a national database passed the Senate yesterday. The system (setup by Homeland Security) will then notify the employer within three days whether or not the employee can work. If not, the employee must be fired. It's about time.

If the makes the cost of Arugula lettuce sky rocket, it will be the ousting of quite a few Senators.

 

[gmichael]

If the makes the cost of Arugula lettuce sky rocket, it will be the ousting of quite a few Senators.

They just got my vote, lettuce or not.

 

[markw]

Just stumbled across this little goodie.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12250584/

I say we use their system as a model for our immigration laws.

 

[Johnd]

Interesting read markw. I touched on this very point on 5-15 (post #88), but was quickly "corrected" by a native Mexican. I did not see the point in arguing with a Mexican about his native policies. The self-imposed blind will never see if they never open their eyes.

Edit: and post #98 on 5-16

 

[markw]

I remember.

Interesting read markw. I touched on this very point on 4-15 (post #88), but was quickly "corrected" by a native Mexican. I did not see the point in arguing with a Mexican about his native policies. The self-imposed blind will never see if they never open their eyes.

HAd this ben available then I would have gladly posted it earlier. I just thought a little (late) reinforcement might come in handy.

 

[Johnd]

Good heads up. I still just find it incredulous that the naysayers' best argument is that we have "no right" to limit immigration, or that any policy aimed at limitation is somehow xenophobic or Draconian. As I've stated before, Mexican illegals are coming here for purely economic reasons, not religious or political persecution.

If there were not so many adverse consequences to unfettered immigration, I would not be so against it. One of the key problems is that the majority of Mexican illegals do not even have a high school education. Are we expected to give them this basic right? Lesser educated people are prone to get lesser paying jobs= tax credits once they are authorized to work. Which means another vehicle that costs us more than it gains us. There are many economic arguments against illegal immigration (and blanket amnesty). The best one for it (at least in this thread) is that a head of lettuce will increase in price. How short-sighted can one be? Look at France.