# The real answer to getting rid of illegal aliens



## Joab (May 6, 2010)

Or, possibly put a little nicer, policies that would send illegal aliens back to their homeland. The first one is rather simple and basic, and as such would likely work. Fine the companies that hire illegal aliens enough to make it economically unprofitable to hire them. Better yet, in the case of big corporations that keep hiring them and paying the fines as a cost of doing business, put repeat offenders CEO's and the like in prison for a few years. 

Another way to lower the number of illegal aliens in this country would be to support economic developement of their homelands so that they wouldn't feel so desperate to risk their lives in some cases to enter the USA illegally, seeking a living wage here. This is not easy to do, but if successful should result in at least far fewer illegal aliens. I really have nothing against illegal aliens wanting to make a better life for themselves and their families, the simple reality is that we can't afford the huge number of illegals coming into the country and in many cases having lots and lots of kids who automatically become U.S. citizens. While the USA has always been a nation of immigrants, it is a nation traditionally of legal immigrants allowed to come into the country when jobs were available and in a small enough number to allow them to assimiliate to becoming Americans. The huge influx of illegal aliens coming into the country from south of the border is not something we can afford in terms of social services, and the numbers are so huge that little assimiliation is taking place, we are in fact becoming a bilingual country. I don't want that, and I don't think the majority of Americans want that either.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 6, 2010)

I like the idea of economically supporting lower developed nations to assist them. Everybody desrves to live a safe and productive life.

You aren't accurate however on the social service side. It is very highly assumed that many illegal immigrants are on welfare, but speaking as a social worker, most illegal immigrants do not seek social service out of fear of being reported (which we won't do btw)

I think we should just make the process of legal immigration easier. Obviously dangerous people should be kept out, but those who really want in and aren't wanted criminals should be given the chance.


----------



## Joab (May 6, 2010)

I've done further research on this and the cost of illegal aliens for social services seems to depend on whose statistics you believe. I would suggest anyone interested in this do your own research and come to your conclusions. There is certainly not a lack of info. out there on the web regarding this issue.

I still maintain the best way to lower the number of illegal aliens in the country is to fine employers so highly that it doesn't make fiscal sense to hire them. That, and attempts to develop those poor countries that illegal aliens are leaving to find a living wage in the USA makes the most sense to me regarding curbing the number of illegal aliens in the USA. I am not for an open border, I do not believe anybody who wants to live in this country should be allowed to live here even if they don't have a criminal history.


----------



## blindsage (May 6, 2010)

Promoting "development" in Mexico has increased the illegal immigrant problem.



Joab said:


> I am not for an open border, I do not believe anybody who wants to live in this country should be allowed to live here even if they don't have a criminal history.


Do you believe in free markets?


----------



## Archangel M (May 6, 2010)

What exactly is it that these "immigration reform" protesters WANT?

It seems to me that they want anybody and everybody to come and go over our borders at will and that there be no repercussions for breaking our immigration laws.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 6, 2010)

I do not begruge those that come here, legaly, and start a new life. 

But it's sneeking in, hiding out, no taxes, free schools, free food stamps, etc... and then DEMAND THEY GET TO STAY!

We made a big mistake 50 years ago allowing everyone to just cross the border so we could have cheap labor.

But with terrorist attacks, we MUST close the border and let only those in that are needed (just as we did with Ellis Island.)

Deaf


----------



## David43515 (May 6, 2010)

blindsage said:


> Promoting "development" in Mexico has increased the illegal immigrant problem.
> 
> 
> Do you believe in free markets?


 

What do you mean promoting development increased the problem? I would think that policies like NAFTA which are there to create more jobs on both sides would have lessened any economic need to sneak across the border.


----------



## Joab (May 7, 2010)

blindsage said:


> Promoting "development" in Mexico has increased the illegal immigrant problem.
> How has promoting development in Mexico increased the illegal immigrant problem?
> 
> Do you believe in free markets?


 
Yes I believe in free markets, that does not mean anybody who wants to live in the USA who wants to should be allowed to. We have immigration laws and they should be honored. I don't want somebody living here who's very first act here is breaking the law. We are a nation of laws and our laws should be obeyed, I believe in rule by law, not anarchy.


----------



## Joab (May 7, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> I do not begruge those that come here, legaly, and start a new life.
> 
> But it's sneeking in, hiding out, no taxes, free schools, free food stamps, etc... and then DEMAND THEY GET TO STAY!
> 
> ...


 
There's also health care costs. Illegal aliens can not be turned away from emergency rooms of hospitals, and that is overwhelming some hospitals and costing an enormous amount of money for those legally here. They have socialized medicine in Mexico...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2010)

Grant amnesty to all the illegal aliens who are currently here who do not have outstanding felony criminal warrants here or in the country of their citizenship.

Doing this allows us to document them.  That means we know who they are and where they are.

Doing this allows us to end the practice of illegal hiring using false social security numbers and ID, as legal hiring will be possible and easier.

Doing this stops the flow of illegal aliens through the border, because now they can come in legally.  That means that people who continue to cross the border illegally are doing so for reasons we care about - terrorism, drug trafficking and so on.  With millions fewer crossing illegally for work, our law enforcement agencies charged with policing our borders can do so.

Doing this puts the illegal aliens here already into a legal status that allows them to begin to pay taxes, have the services they use accounted for, and we can get a true picture of what immigration costs us.

Doing this allows us to apply rules of citizenship that require learning English and attending schools, because citizens and legal residents are not hiding out from law enforcement and have a reason to obey the law and not hide from it if they want to stay.

We can end this problem.  It will not be as simple or as easy as I have said, but that's the right direction.  Senator McCain described it and I supported it and still do.  Building bigger fences won't do it.  Locking up more illegals won't do it.  They want to come in, and a huge number of us want them to come it (those who employ illegal aliens).  There is no reason to keep them out; all the ills described are as a result of their illegal status, not as a result of the people themselves.  Make them legal and those ills stop occurring.

The control of our borders is a national security issue.  We cannot properly detect incoming drugs, weapons, and terrorists, when they can simply hide in the millions coming across for work.  That flow is so heavy we cannot stop it.  Rhetoric won't stop it.  Patriot citizen border patrols won't stop it.  More cops won't stop it.  Approach the problem from the point of view of solving it instead of punishing people who are here illegally and we can do it.


----------



## Joab (May 7, 2010)

Thanks Bill, but there are too many here to grant amnesty to all of them. They need to be sent back and to the end of the line while those who legally have gone through the process of becoming American citizens get the first chance. We are a nation of laws and we should reward those who follow them, not those who break them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2010)

Joab said:


> Thanks Bill, but there are too many here to grant amnesty to all of them.



That's a nonsensical statement.  How many is 'too many' and how do you decide how many is OK and how many is 'too many'?



> They need to be sent back and to the end of the line while those who legally have gone through the process of becoming American citizens get the first chance.



Make them wait in line for citizenship but not for legal residency.



> We are a nation of laws and we should reward those who follow them, not those who break them.



We grant amnesty for everything from draft-dodging to parking tickets to overdue library books to overdue taxes.  We are a nation of laws, and we also have a modicum of common sense and a notion of how to solve problems without cutting our noses to spite our faces.

We're such a nation of laws, how come nobody follows the speed limit, pulls over for fire trucks, stops for school buses, pays their honest taxes, and so on? 

Yes, we're all basically honest; we don't rob banks or kill people for the most part.  But that old 'laws are laws' nonsense is only dragged out when people want a law enforced for another reason, a more personal reason.  When it's convenient or it impacts ourselves, then we're a lot more flexible.


----------



## Joab (May 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's a nonsensical statement. How many is 'too many' and how do you decide how many is OK and how many is 'too many'?
> 
> We have immigration laws that address that. The number that is legally allowed.
> 
> ...


 
No, it's a basic belief in rule by law as opposed to the anarchy you seem to be suggesting.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2010)

Joab said:


> No, it's a basic belief in rule by law as opposed to the anarchy you seem to be suggesting.



In what way am I suggesting anarchy?  I am suggesting amnesty, which would be a law to regularize the status of currently-illegal non-criminal aliens in the USA.  That too would be rule by law - a new law granting amnesty and creating a legal work/resident program for former illegal aliens who are not felons.

Was it 'anarchy' when President Carter granted amnesty to Vietnam-war draft dodgers living in Canada?  Is it 'anarchy' when states grant amnesty to those who owe back-taxes, giving them relief from penalties and and interest in order to get them to simply what was owed originally?

Many times in life, we get stuck in situations that don't sit well with us.  We'd like it if people and institutions faced the same consequences for their actions that the rest of us do.  But the facts sometimes cause us to deal with life the way it is, as opposed to the way we want it to be.

The law serves us; we do not serve the law.  If the law says we can't make illegal aliens legal, we can change it in order to serve our own best interests.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 7, 2010)

blindsage said:


> Promoting "development" in Mexico has increased the illegal immigrant problem.
> 
> 
> Do you believe in free markets?


 
Everytime we have this debate you bring up the free market issue. 

DUDE! We don't have a free market!  So your bringing this up every time is irrelevant.  Even if one does believe in a free market, the guy is only trying to solve a particular problem, not all of the ills of the world.

Even still, and what no one will address for fear of being labled a racist, is that there are cultural aspects to this as well.  And no, we're not talking about whether Mexicans, or any other race is genetically inferior to another.  But, there are cultural aspects of Mexicans that many Americans don't want to have here.

And commesurate with the majority of the immigrant Mexican population to refuse integration, what is bascially occurring is that the southwestern region of the United States is culturally turning into "Northern Mexico".  

That's their fault, not ours.


----------



## blindsage (May 7, 2010)

David43515 said:


> What do you mean promoting development increased the problem? I would think that policies like NAFTA which are there to create more jobs on both sides would have lessened any economic need to sneak across the border.


A lot of the development process in Mexico has forced previously agragrian citizens off the land and into the cities to seek work, and the number of jobs in the cities have not nearly kept pace, which leads to people seeking jobs elsewhere.


----------



## blindsage (May 7, 2010)

Joab said:


> Yes I believe in free markets, that does not mean anybody who wants to live in the USA who wants to should be allowed to. We have immigration laws and they should be honored. I don't want somebody living here who's very first act here is breaking the law. We are a nation of laws and our laws should be obeyed, I believe in rule by law, not anarchy.


I'm not necessarily saying _I'm_ for open borders,  but by definition in order to have free markets you must have free movement of capital _AND_ labor.  If you don't you do not have free markets, period.  You can't have both rigid borders and free markets, it's either one or the other.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 7, 2010)

There is no such thing as a 'free' market, no matter what certain political ideologies would have you believe.  

The rules of the game are always regulated and slanted one way or another to favour those holding the most wealth.  Those wealth holders like the freedom of no tariff imports and exports and love their ability to exploit the workers of non-Western nations because they are so much cheaper.  

The export of jobs they don't care about and likewise the influx of nigh-on-slave-labour they favour too as it works to begin the erosion of income for the home-soil workers, thus enabling the next flip of import-export flows when the tipping point is reached.

If governments were free to make meaningful decisions I think you would find that it is perfectly possible to have regulation of markets with reasonable tariffs to level the playing field between developed and developing economies.  Likewise is is possible to balance flows of labour by the same motivation i,e, make immigration less attractive as a career move and encourage internal improvement of the standard of living for workers on both sides of a border.

It's either that or so cripple your own economy and standard-of-living to the extent that it is objectively worse than that of the countries from which illegal emigration is a problem.  Hardly an attractive option.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 7, 2010)

blindsage said:


> I'm not necessarily saying _I'm_ for open borders, but by definition in order to have free markets you must have free movement of capital _AND_ labor. If you don't you do not have free markets, period. You can't have both rigid borders and free markets, it's either one or the other.


 
You can have, theoretically, free movement of labor.  But the point you are missing is that immigration is more then just about labor.


----------



## Joab (May 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In what way am I suggesting anarchy? I am suggesting amnesty, which would be a law to regularize the status of currently-illegal non-criminal aliens in the USA. That too would be rule by law - a new law granting amnesty and creating a legal work/resident program for former illegal aliens who are not felons...
> 
> 
> 
> The law serves us; we do not serve the law. If the law says we can't make illegal aliens legal, we can change it in order to serve our own best interests.


 
If we granted amnesty to illegal aliens it would not be anarchy per se as the law would be changed. It would also make suckers of those who played by the rules and waited in line while trying to immigrate to the the USA legally. It would in reality be rewarding people for illegal activity and encourage other such actions in the future, I am completely opposed to granting illegal aliens amnesty.


----------



## Blade96 (May 8, 2010)

I'd agree with both Joab and Bill.

Grant the ones in the US already, amnesty

Then help people in other countries improve their own conditions so they can stay at home and wouldnt have to leave.

I am betting that, like my people many of whom left to better pastures so get a better life (not much here actually) illegal immigrants really dont want to leave. They would like to stay home but life there sucks.

Just like Newfoundlanders who have to leave but they really dont want to.


----------



## Archangel M (May 8, 2010)

Politically... Amnesty is about the democrat party hoping that they will get a boost in their voting block. Anybody who believes that they are thinking otherwise is naive.


----------



## elder999 (May 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Politically... Amnesty is about the democrat party hoping that they will get a boost in their voting block. Anybody who believes that they are thinking otherwise is naive.


 
What was it about when then President George Bush was pushing for it, then?


----------



## geezer (May 9, 2010)

If you want to control illegal immigration, you have to control the jobs... as said before, fine or otherwise punish the employers. Nothing draconian. It's not the severity of the punishment that makes it effective, _but the certainty_. You have to enforce the law or it's not worth a damn.

Now as to how you go about enforcing the law... (now I know this will tick Bill off big time) you need a standardized, totally up-to-date _National ID card_ complete with all the unforgeable bells and whistles ...you know, a hologram, magnetic strip, maybe a fingerprint, _...whatever_. Now if everybody legally here and entitled to work could present such a card, or if they prefer (like Bill) to do it the old way with several traditional forms of ID and _E-Verify_... well then it would be awfully hard to get a job if you weren't legal. Simple enough. And no need to have anti-immigrant sweeps, mass deportations or the 21st Century's answer to the Great Wall on our southern border. If there are no jobs... they won't come. And, if the economy improves, and it turns out that we really do need more imported labor... great. _Then_ we can offer work permits.

But, in any case, there's no call in getting all hateful towards Mexicans looking to feed their families. _Let's just solve the problem._

Another thing. Would you guys stop saying things like _"I have no problem with them coming over here legally... it's just the illegals I oppose..."_ Don't be willfully obtuse. It is virtually impossible for a poor Mexican or Central American laborer to get legal US work papers. Even if they spend every last centavo they have, fill out reams of paperwork and wait twenty years. That's why they leave their families, pay smugglers their life savings and risk their lives to jump the fence and walk across the desert. Maybe you thought it was because they were just bad or lazy? Get real guys!


----------



## Cryozombie (May 9, 2010)

geezer said:


> Another thing. Would you guys stop saying things like _"I have no problem with them coming over here legally... it's just the illegals I oppose..."_ Don't be willfully obtuse. It is virtually impossible for a poor Mexican or Central American laborer to get legal US work papers. Even if they spend every last centavo they have, fill out reams of paperwork and wait twenty years. That's why they leave their families, pay smugglers their life savings and risk their lives to jump the fence and walk across the desert. Maybe you thought it was because they were just bad or lazy? Get real guys!



I don't think this is a valid justification.  Even if I scrape together every cent I have, apply for dozens of loans and fill out grant paperwork till its coming out of my ears, I still wont be able to afford a Ferrarri.  Does this give me the right to steal one from a dealership?


----------



## kungfu penguin (May 9, 2010)

my big thing is educating illegals  our scores are brought down because a lot of them had terrible or no education in their country  we are being held to NCLB standards and then we have some [not all] of these kids whose primary language is terrible and their english is even more so. these kids are expected to take the state test  but any language expert worth their salt will tell you it take 7-9 years to acclimate  yet we test them as long as they have been here more than 60 days, that is my gripe about illgal aliens   if they are "illegal" why do we designate so much money for them  when we have citizens that cant get the same things [example paid hospital visits]  maybe i dont see the whole picture  but from where i teach, i see this all the time.  one final gripe:  how come a person who has lived in this country more than 15 years  still cant  or wont speak english?   i know if i lived in another country  i would want to know how to communicate and not have to rely on someone to interpret for me  as soon as possible  in short i would want to be self reliant  not dependant on others


----------



## geezer (May 9, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I don't think this is a valid justification.  Even if I scrape together every cent I have, apply for dozens of loans and fill out grant paperwork till its coming out of my ears, I still wont be able to afford a Ferrarri.  *Does this give me the right to steal one* from a dealership?


Hell no! I'm _not_ saying that we should throw our borders wide open. I'm just tired of hearing people say stuff like _"My only problem with these immigrants is that they are illegal. I wouldn't mind if they came over here legally like my ancestors."_ Like getting here legally is even an option!

*IT'S NOT.*

And, when you really think about it, we could control immigration more effectively if we did have some way for some of these people to work here legally... you know, _having a carrot as well as a stick?_ Bush understood that. So did McCain (before he got scared that he'd lose in the next primary).. and Obama too. It's just a matter of finding the right balance    at the right time to fit our economic needs. Sadly, politically and economically, now isn't that time.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 9, 2010)

geezer said:


> Like getting here legally is even an option!
> 
> *IT'S NOT.*



I don't believe this.  Do you know why I don't believe this?  Because I work with *DOZENS* of Legal immigrants.  In fact My town is almost 40% Hispanic, and while they estimate that nearly 60% of the Hispanic Population is Illegal that means 40% are here by legal means, meaning *IT IS POSSIBLE.*

While I agree that it is not possible for EVERYONE, and Difficult for some, again it is no excuse:  Getting a Medical degree is not an option for me, should I practice medicine anyhow?  I mean, I'm just trying to better my situation, earn a little more and support my family in a way that elevates them.  Shouldn't I be given that opportunity, just because it costs too much, requires too much education and paperwork, and takes too long of a wait to complete?  

And, just because one disagrees with the law, doesn't mean it SHOULD be ignored or broken, with zero consequence.  Where do we draw the line on that?  I can think of dozens of laws that don't make sense, I can think of a few I can argue against and a sane person would be hard pressed to find fault in my reasoning (ask me about DVD piracy laws some day) but it does not mean I can simply break them because they are wrong.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 9, 2010)

geezer said:


> But, in any case, there's no call in getting all hateful towards Mexicans looking to feed their families. _Let's just solve the problem._


 
Who's getting hateful.  What you see are people who perceive a problem and either a) venting their frustration (read: catapults), or b) trying to provide solutions. 



> Another thing. Would you guys stop saying things like _"I have no problem with them coming over here legally... it's just the illegals I oppose..."_ Don't be willfully obtuse. It is virtually impossible for a poor Mexican or Central American laborer to get legal US work papers. Even if they spend every last centavo they have, fill out reams of paperwork and wait twenty years. That's why they leave their families, pay smugglers their life savings and risk their lives to jump the fence and walk across the desert. Maybe you thought it was because they were just bad or lazy? Get real guys!


 
Maybe you should understand that the United States does not just let every person who wants to be a legal citizen into the country, regardless of nation of origin.  They have to meet certain criteria.  Including issues regarding to being able to get gainful employment.

Now, with thousands of illegals coming into the country every year taking those jobs that people trying to come here legally would take, perhaps they are weighing that into the factor.

Not to say that our legal residency / citizenship process couldn't use a bit of work.  But, there are other factors to consider besides the one you present.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2010)

Joab said:


> If we granted amnesty to illegal aliens it would not be anarchy per se as the law would be changed.



I think we may not have the same definition of the word 'anarchy'.  It means literally 'no law'.  A state of anarchy exists when there is no law whatsoever.  Changing laws is not anarchy, it's changing laws.



> It would also make suckers of those who played by the rules and waited in line while trying to immigrate to the the USA legally.



As I said, reward those by putting them first in line for citizenship.

And frankly - I don't think that the reason most people are against immigration reform is because they're overly concerned with the plight of the people who patiently waited in line and played by the rules.  It's just a tick mark on the list of objections they have to them bad awful Mexicans.  Not you - some people.



> It would in reality be rewarding people for illegal activity and encourage other such actions in the future, I am completely opposed to granting illegal aliens amnesty.



Then what solution would you be in favor of?  Continuing the status quo?  I find that many people who refuse to consider immigration reform or amnesty have a single statement - _*"enforce the law,"*_ which in my opinion is a way of saying _*"do nothing at all,"*_ because the law will not be enforced.  At this point, that should be clear to everyone.  We haven't the will, we haven't the manpower, we haven't the prison space, we haven't the money.  It will not happen.  So I'm in favor of an actual solution.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Politically... Amnesty is about the democrat party hoping that they will get a boost in their voting block. Anybody who believes that they are thinking otherwise is naive.



It was a major part of Senator McCain's platform when he was running for President.  I was a supporter, I went to his rallies and I heard it out of his own mouth,  personally.  Do you suppose that he is a Democrat or that I am 'naive'?


----------



## Archangel M (May 9, 2010)

I mean currently. 

Even Bush was pandering the Hispanic vote for the same reason.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I mean currently.
> 
> Even Bush was pandering the Hispanic vote for the same reason.



McCain was stumping in Michigan when I heard him support amnesty.  Not much of a Hispanic vote to curry.  And his point of view was not popular - he was booed.  I believe this is his conscience and his belief on how to solve this problem, and I agree with him.  I'm not running for office, I am not trying to curry favor with anyone.  And clearly, I don't care if I piss off my fellow conservatives.  I think they're wrong if they're not for immigration reform.  I'm willing to be my own man and don't feel the need to kneel and kiss the ring of the uber-conservative jackholes.


----------



## Archangel M (May 9, 2010)

Before we decide to bestow citizenship to people who flouted our laws we need to secure our borders.


----------



## Carol (May 9, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Before we decide to bestow citizenship to people who flouted our laws we need to secure our borders.



I can't argue with that logic. :asian:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 9, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then what solution would you be in favor of? Continuing the status quo? I find that many people who refuse to consider immigration reform or amnesty have a single statement - _*"enforce the law,"*_ which in my opinion is a way of saying _*"do nothing at all,"*_ because the law will not be enforced. At this point, that should be clear to everyone. We haven't the will, we haven't the manpower, we haven't the prison space, we haven't the money. It will not happen. So I'm in favor of an actual solution.


 
Solution to what, exactly?

We had an amnesty in 1986.  It was supposed to stem the tide of illegal immigration.  It obviously didn't work.

Ok, so those that are here are now citizens / legal residents.  Now what?  How do you stop further incursions across our border?  Especially in light of the fact that if enough come across again, with the history that we are trending, we will have yet another amnesty program.  

So it really wouldn't solve the problem.  



> And frankly - I don't think that the reason most people are against immigration reform is because they're overly concerned with the plight of the people who patiently waited in line and played by the rules. It's just a tick mark on the list of objections they have to them bad awful Mexicans. Not you - some people.


 
No, it's because they believe that there is a legal and proper way to accomplish U.S. Citizenship.  Quite frankly, I only care about their plight in a distant, observational kind of way.  I don't lay awake at night concerned about the daily occurings in Mexico.

Either way, you point about their view of "bad awful Mexicans", is yet more rhetoric that those for kicking them out are racist.  Most Americans are for *legal* immigration and against illegal immigration.  The polls show that time and again.  But, in order to stir the pot, you have to bring up that some people are racist.  Good job!


----------



## Joab (May 10, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then what solution would you be in favor of? Continuing the status quo? I find that many people who refuse to consider immigration reform or amnesty have a single statement - _*"enforce the law,"*_ which in my opinion is a way of saying _*"do nothing at all,"*_ because the law will not be enforced. At this point, that should be clear to everyone. We haven't the will, we haven't the manpower, we haven't the prison space, we haven't the money. It will not happen. So I'm in favor of an actual solution.


 
Read my original post. Fine companies that hire illegal aliens an amount that would not make it fiscally feasible to hire them. Help develop the economy of Mexico so that those in Mexico will not believe they need to risk their lives to come into the USA illegally to get a job.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 10, 2010)

Carol said:


> I can't argue with that logic. :asian:



I can.  If we do not possess the ability to secure our borders, then it does not make sense to require that as a prerequisite to dealing with the issue of illegal immigration.

Imagine if the captain of the Titanic had said _"Before we deal with the problem of getting people into lifeboats, I want the hole in the ship patched."_  Good idea?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 10, 2010)

Joab said:


> Read my original post. Fine companies that hire illegal aliens an amount that would not make it fiscally feasible to hire them.



I did. It betrays a lack of understanding of conditions that prevail.

Fine companies?  We have such laws.  They're rarely enforced.  You could argue that they should be enforced.  Yes, but how?  Too many companies, too few enforcement officers, not enough money (or will) to perform such enforcement.  We could collect all overdue library book fines too; but there is no manpower or will to do so, therefore it does not and will not get done.  You can 'want' it all you wish; it's not going to happen.  Let's deal with reality.



> Help develop the economy of Mexico so that those in Mexico will not believe they need to risk their lives to come into the USA illegally to get a job.



We cannot even get our own economy off it's knees, and you want us sending more money to Mexico?  Not only do we not have the money or the ability to restore Mexico's economy, in no way would US conservatives ever agree to such a plan.  It's not even a remote possibility.

I said solve the problem, not throw out a bunch of ideas that have zero percent chance of occurring and insisting that they be tried first.  That is the same as saying you want the status quo, because that's what will happen; nothing at all.


----------



## Archangel M (May 10, 2010)

Great Idea..lets just keep granting amnesty to anybody who crosses our borders illegally while doing nothing to secure them. Where do you see THAT leading?

We certainly DO have the ability to secure our border to a much more effective degree than we currently do, if we had a government with the will to do so.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 10, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Solution to what, exactly?
> 
> We had an amnesty in 1986.  It was supposed to stem the tide of illegal immigration.  It obviously didn't work.



I tried to start my car the other day and it would not start.  I won't bother to try ever again; it obviously won't work.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 also did not create amnesty for all illegal aliens, but only created 'a path towards citizenship' for agricultural workers who had been in the USA 'continuously' since 1982.  No one else needed to apply. That meant that seasonal workers and those who came to the US illegally after 1982 could not become legal immigrants under this program, nor could those who came after.



> Ok, so those that are here are now citizens / legal residents.  Now what?  How do you stop further incursions across our border?  Especially in light of the fact that if enough come across again, with the history that we are trending, we will have yet another amnesty program.
> 
> 
> So it really wouldn't solve the problem.



No amnesty is going to end illegal immigration by itself.   People come here for work and new generations come of age every year who want to do that.  Amnesty for those here now, and a guest worker program for those who want to come here to work in the future, will end illegal immigration.  Why climb a fence, when you can go to the gate, get an ID card, and enter legally and begin working?  The only people who would still come through illegally would be those we want to catch - the criminals, drug smugglers, terrorists, and so on. And with millions fewer coming through the fencelines, it would be actually possible to catch them.



> No, it's because they believe that there is a legal and proper way to accomplish U.S. Citizenship.  Quite frankly, I only care about their plight in a distant, observational kind of way.  I don't lay awake at night concerned about the daily occurings in Mexico.
> 
> Either way, you point about their view of "bad awful Mexicans", is yet more rhetoric that those for kicking them out are racist.  Most Americans are for *legal* immigration and against illegal immigration.  The polls show that time and again.  But, in order to stir the pot, you have to bring up that some people are racist.  Good job!



When people say _"it's the principle of the thing,"_ it's *never* the principle of the thing.  It's a common weakness people have for not wishing to face what it is that's really bugging them.  I know what it is, because I grew up a conservative in a family of ultra-conservatives, and I know just exactly what they mean when they say those things.

And frankly, if it were possible to secure our borders and not grant any kind of amnesty or legal status or guest worker program, I'd have no problems with it.  But I see a single problem here; border security.  I realize that there is nothing we can do to stem the tide of illegal immigrants coming here to work; we want them here, we love them here; we just ***** about it online, but we love it when they cut our grass and put roofs on our houses and pick our produce in the fields.  We love those low prices that can only be achieved by paying next to nothing to unskilled immigrant workers.  We don't want the consequences that we'd face if they all vanished tomorrow in a puff of smoke in terms of higher prices for us all.  They want to be here, we want them to be here.  And that's going to continue.

Therefore, since my focus is on border security and NOT on who is being fairest to whom, and how sacred the law is, and how we just can't make a mockery of our system of laws by giving legal status to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that waltzes in here illegally.  I don't give a crap about those things. I care about securing the border.  Since we can't do that without ending the influx of millions of illegal workers, I agree with Senator McCain; make them legal.  That ends the influx.  Then we can secure the borders.

It's that simple.  Anyone who is against it has another agenda, and it's not about securing the borders, in my opinion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 10, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Great Idea..lets just keep granting amnesty to anybody who crosses our borders illegally while doing nothing to secure them. Where do you see THAT leading?



Yes, it would lead to people no longer climbing over the fences.  They stroll right in the gate, we find out who they are, check their criminal histories, and if they are the kind of people we don't mind having here, we give them work permits.  That's where it would lead.

Then anyone going over the fence would be someone of much more interest to us.  Someone worth devoting expensive law enforcement resources to.



> We certainly DO have the ability to secure our border to a much more effective degree than we currently do, if we had a government with the will to do so.



But we don't.  So wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets fuller faster.  I propose we do something that has a snowball's chance of working, instead of perpetually demanding something that won't ever happen.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 10, 2010)

Nobody's proposing "amnesty," in the sense of open the doors and everyone's legal. What Bush and McCain proposed was basically this:

For those already here, they must register, pay a fine, get on the end of the line for citizenship, and learn English. 

And it's a good idea.

But in my opinion, before I want to discuss immigration reform with anyone, I want to know:

Who is mowing your lawn? Who is babysitting your kids? Who is doing your home renovations? Who is cooking your food? Because if you're hiring illegals, then shut up--we already know that you LOVE illegal aliens no matter how much you protest.

My kid, an accomplished baker, can't get a part-time job baking bread at Panera's, even when they've got a "Help Wanted" sign in the window--they want illegals, so they don't have to pay minimum wage or offer a safe, fair working environment. Very patriotic.

I'm with Joab--penalize the people who are hiring illegals, and people won't come here illegally anymore.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 10, 2010)

Phoenix44 said:


> Nobody's proposing "amnesty," in the sense of open the doors and everyone's legal. What Bush and McCain proposed was basically this:
> 
> For those already here, they must register, pay a fine, get on the end of the line for citizenship, and learn English.
> 
> And it's a good idea.


 
I agree.



> But in my opinion, before I want to discuss immigration reform with anyone, I want to know:
> 
> Who is mowing your lawn? Who is babysitting your kids? Who is doing your home renovations? Who is cooking your food? Because if you're hiring illegals, then shut up--we already know that you LOVE illegal aliens no matter how much you protest.



Also agreed.  But in addition to that, who is picking the produce you buy at the grocery store?  Who mows the grass where you work?  Who puts the roofs on the news houses going up in the city you live in?  Who is canning vegetables, hauling fish nets, and working in packing houses?

Even those who do not love illegal aliens per se do love the end result - lower prices.  They'd pinch a purple loaf if they had to pay what it costs to have a union member and certified US citizen pick a head of lettuce.  They want the benefits that illegal workers provide, even if they personally do not employ illegal aliens as workers.

The constant pressure for lower prices and thinner margins at grocery stores, in trades like lawn maintenance and roofing, etc, forces small businesses to hire illegal aliens; they have to compete or go out of business.  And it's pressure from consumers that provide the impetus for that, it doesn't come out of nowhere.



> My kid, an accomplished baker, can't get a part-time job baking bread at Panera's, even when they've got a "Help Wanted" sign in the window--they want illegals, so they don't have to pay minimum wage or offer a safe, fair working environment. Very patriotic.



If they charged a buck a sandwich more and advertised that they only hire US  citizens, people would go somewhere else.  The dollar rules.  Look at Subway - their current advertising campaign is _"$5 footlong."_  Why?  Because it's tasty?  Because it is nutritious?  No, because it's cheap. You can blame Panera, but it's not them providing the pressure, it's the consumer.

My step brother owned a roofing company.  He complained that he hired only those who were legally allowed to work in the US, but he had to pay at least minimum wage.  His competitors would hire illegals and pay them less, and underbid him on jobs.  And his biggest complaint?  The illegal aliens worked harder and did a better job than his guys, who were lazy Americans who didn't like to work and were constantly getting 'hurt' on the job and claiming workman's comp.



> I'm with Joab--penalize the people who are hiring illegals, and people won't come here illegally anymore.



I disagree with this.  They come here for jobs.  The jobs exist because the public wants them, _as you stated._  Even when an individual person refuses to hire any illegal aliens themselves, they benefit from and demand the lower prices that result from illegal alien labor.  Any company that has to compete on price is susceptible to the power of the consumer to constantly demand a lower price.

Personally, I hire no one to mow my lawn, so I can say I never hired illegal aliens, right?  On the other hand, I do buy groceries, and if lettuce suddenly shot up a couple bucks a head, I'd notice that, and I'd be looking to buy lettuce where it was cheaper.  That's the pressure to hire illegal aliens.  Everyone who buys any good or service on price that is provided by cheap labor is essentially demanding that the current situation continues.  You may not think so, but the blame is on us.


----------



## Archangel M (May 10, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And commesurate with the majority of the immigrant Mexican population to refuse integration, what is bascially occurring is that the southwestern region of the United States is culturally turning into "Northern Mexico".
> 
> That's their fault, not ours.



[yt]s6C6IXqVLQM[/yt]

Resulting in things like this guy and his views? Especially around the :45 mark? Top it all off this guy is reported to be  PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER in California!


----------



## Archangel M (May 10, 2010)

So should anybody who wants to fly or boat in from ANY nation be given the same consideration?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 10, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I tried to start my car the other day and it would not start.  I won't bother to try ever again; it obviously won't work.



FWIW, I usually try and fix it first, rather than sit and crank on it over and over...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fine companies? We have such laws. They're rarely enforced. You could argue that they should be enforced. Yes, but how? Too many companies, too few enforcement officers, not enough money (or will) to perform such enforcement. We could collect all overdue library book fines too; but there is no manpower or will to do so, therefore it does not and will not get done. You can 'want' it all you wish; it's not going to happen. Let's deal with reality.


 
Arizonans have the political will to do it.  

What I find even more frustrating is your political philosophy.  It's basically, "Well, since the politicians won't do it, let's just agree to what they will do."  This flies directly in contradiction to your past posts in the thread regarding the arrested militia members.  



> I tried to start my car the other day and it would not start. I won't bother to try ever again; it obviously won't work.


 
Einstein, a far smarter man then me, said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.



> The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 also did not create amnesty for all illegal aliens, but only created 'a path towards citizenship' for agricultural workers who had been in the USA 'continuously' since 1982. No one else needed to apply. That meant that seasonal workers and those who came to the US illegally after 1982 could not become legal immigrants under this program, nor could those who came after.
> 
> No amnesty is going to end illegal immigration by itself. People come here for work and new generations come of age every year who want to do that. Amnesty for those here now, and a guest worker program for those who want to come here to work in the future, will end illegal immigration.


 
I understand that.  However, we already have what you are asking for, it's called an H-2A Visa Temporary Labor Certification for seasonal agricultural work.  Or how about the H-2B Visa for temporary labor for non-agrucultural work.  Hell, if you do a Google search for "guest worker program" the first link is to the United States Department of Labor talking about these Visas.

So the United States has in place what you are suggesting.  And as you keep decrying us for saying that there is no political will to enforce the laws that are in place, the inverse is true.  We have the programs you want, and STILL illegals are coming here.  So we KNOW that what you want won't work.  Why don't we try something else.

Unless we want to be, as Einstein said, insane.



> When people say _"it's the principle of the thing,"_ it's *never* the principle of the thing. It's a common weakness people have for not wishing to face what it is that's really bugging them. I know what it is, because I grew up a conservative in a family of ultra-conservatives, and I know just exactly what they mean when they say those things.


 
Talk about projecting.  So, somehow, you know that my argument about illegal immigration relating to the legality of the issue is really because I'm racist, and all because you had some family members that were.  And having never met me before, it makes it doubly amazing.  You should have your own talk show.  Why do we even have debates since you are so sure about the answers to life, the universe, and everything.  

Come on, you're better then that, aren't you?



> we want them here, we love them here; we just ***** about it online, but we love it when they cut our grass and put roofs on our houses and pick our produce in the fields. We love those low prices that can only be achieved by paying next to nothing to unskilled immigrant workers.


 
I call BS.  The market will adjust itself based on supply and demand.  The only difference that happened when illegal immigrants took over jobs that were done by citizens is that the pockets of business owners got fatter.  The average citizen saw no reduction in cost associated with the  purchasing of the products that they produced.  

It amazes me how somehow, people were able to afford food, clothing, and shelter before this modern influx of illegal immigration occurred.  It must have been a fluke, huh.



> Also agreed. But in addition to that, who is picking the produce you buy at the grocery store? Who mows the grass where you work? Who puts the roofs on the news houses going up in the city you live in? Who is canning vegetables, hauling fish nets, and working in packing houses?


 
Interesting.  So unless I want to be homeless and hungry, I am demanding illegal immigrants to come to this country.  

This system was around before I had any vote in the matter.  It is a system that I am forced to live within, unless I move to another country.  But now you are blaming me for it because I need to eat in order to live, even though I'm doing what I can to change the system.  

That's some logic for your a** there, isn't it....



> Even those who do not love illegal aliens per se do love the end result - lower prices. They'd pinch a purple loaf if they had to pay what it costs to have a union member and certified US citizen pick a head of lettuce. They want the benefits that illegal workers provide, even if they personally do not employ illegal aliens as workers.


 
Once again, the end result is not lower prices, but massive multi-million dollar bonuses for the corporate executives.  There have been few price reductions relative to inflation due to illegal immigrant workers.



> Look at Subway - their current advertising campaign is _"$5 footlong."_ Why? Because it's tasty? Because it is nutritious? No, because it's cheap.


 
Yes.  This from the same company where I overheard not two weeks ago a young man saying that he was just hired by the company for $12 an hour.  A young Hispanic man.  So they're really short changing the immigrants, aren't they.



> My step brother owned a roofing company. He complained that he hired only those who were legally allowed to work in the US, but he had to pay at least minimum wage. His competitors would hire illegals and pay them less, and underbid him on jobs. And his biggest complaint? The illegal aliens worked harder and did a better job than his guys, who were lazy Americans who didn't like to work and were constantly getting 'hurt' on the job and claiming workman's comp.


 
So, once again, based on your anecdotal evidence, we are supposed to believe that this is the way things are everywhere.  How about this.  It is my experience that illegal immigrants do less work then legals, and there work product is better.   So now, my experience trumps yours. Nah Nah.

You see where this gets us.  No where..


----------



## Joab (May 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I did. It betrays a lack of understanding of conditions that prevail.
> 
> Fine companies? We have such laws. They're rarely enforced. You could argue that they should be enforced. Yes, but how? Too many companies, too few enforcement officers, not enough money (or will) to perform such enforcement. We could collect all overdue library book fines too; but there is no manpower or will to do so, therefore it does not and will not get done. You can 'want' it all you wish; it's not going to happen. Let's deal with reality.
> 
> ...


 
How do you know they have zero chance of occuring? There not completely outlandish ideas, it's not like I'm suggesting we nuke the border between Mexico or the USA or something.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Arizonans have the political will to do it.



It will be interesting to see if the new law in Arizona passes Constitutional muster.  If it does, then I have no complaint about the Arizona law.  However, I have some serious doubts that it is going to have much of an effect on the illegal alien problem in Arizona.



> What I find even more frustrating is your political philosophy.  It's basically, "Well, since the politicians won't do it, let's just agree to what they will do."  This flies directly in contradiction to your past posts in the thread regarding the arrested militia members.



The politicians do not possess the political will to enforce the existing laws because their constituents and major contributors do not want them enforced.  Americans, when polled, say we are for more stringent enforcement.  Yet we continue to not demand it of their elected leaders, and we reelect leaders who do not introduce legislation to require tougher legislation.  We say one thing, but we want another. 

We get what we elect.



> Einstein, a far smarter man then me, said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.



We haven't had immigration reform so far.  Just fits and starts.  Half-assed attempts that were doomed to failure.



> I understand that.  However, we already have what you are asking for, it's called an H-2A Visa Temporary Labor Certification for seasonal agricultural work.  Or how about the H-2B Visa for temporary labor for non-agrucultural work.  Hell, if you do a Google search for "guest worker program" the first link is to the United States Department of Labor talking about these Visas.



That's not for workers, it is for employers.  They have to apply in advance of their needs, they have to prove that no citizens would apply for the jobs if they advertised for them (by advertising for them), and they have to pay minimum wage, provide free food and housing for the workers, and it's only for agricultural workers, not roofers, gardeners, and other contractors.  About 30,000 such visas are issued, because employers see them as much more expensive than hiring illegals through shill companies that certify them as legal when they're not, providing a pleasant fiction.



> So the United States has in place what you are suggesting.  And as you keep decrying us for saying that there is no political will to enforce the laws that are in place, the inverse is true.  We have the programs you want, and STILL illegals are coming here.  So we KNOW that what you want won't work.  Why don't we try something else.



No, as I pointed out, we do not have in place what I was suggesting.  Nothing even close to that.



> I call BS.  The market will adjust itself based on supply and demand.  The only difference that happened when illegal immigrants took over jobs that were done by citizens is that the pockets of business owners got fatter.  The average citizen saw no reduction in cost associated with the  purchasing of the products that they produced.



Why do we offshore jobs?  Why do we  build factories in counties which don't pay competitive wages compared to the USA? Because it lowers the cost of production.  Labor has and will remain one of the largest factors in producing goods and services.  Some labor can't easily be shipped overseas, such as picking lettuce or roofing houses, so they bring the workers here.

Do markets adjust themselves?  Sure, as long as everyone plays along.  But that very supply and demand you speak of causes the demand for illegal workers to remain high - all it takes is one competitor in the area who uses cheap illegal labor, to undercut all his competition.  Then the others must follow suit or they cannot compete with his prices.  The law of supply and demand also means that in a market where low price is the driving force, the lowest price wins.  It is just as you describe but fail to recognize; the lowest price causes others to have to do as the low-price leader does.  Either by innovation or by copying.  There's not a lot of innovation in roofing houses or picking lettuce these days, so they lower prices by hiring cheaper labor.  The illegal kind.



> It amazes me how somehow, people were able to afford food, clothing, and shelter before this modern influx of illegal immigration occurred.  It must have been a fluke, huh.



When did we not have illegal immigration to the USA for purposes of finding employment?



> Interesting.  So unless I want to be homeless and hungry, I am demanding illegal immigrants to come to this country.



You are demanding the lowest prices - we all do.  Demanding the lowest price requires businesses to compete on price rather than quality.  They cut costs wherever they can to compete for the lowest price to win our business.  Labor is one of the largest expenses there is.  I have had not one, not two, but three pay cuts from my employer, while they continue to expand their use of offshore IT workers.  Why?  They're cheaper, that's why, and our customers demand the lowest price and will choose our competitors to provide it if they have a lower price.  I'm not happy about it, but low price requires cost-cutting, and in areas that cannot offshore employment legally, illegal immigration often serves the same purpose.  So yes, you're demanding illegal immigrants come here and do the work so your lettuce can be very cheap.



> This system was around before I had any vote in the matter.  It is a system that I am forced to live within, unless I move to another country.  But now you are blaming me for it because I need to eat in order to live, even though I'm doing what I can to change the system.



I'm not blaming anyone for anything.  It is what it is.  We want the benefits of low-paid workers without allowing illegal immigration, and we can't have both, it's not physically possible.  So either we take the one or we take the other.  I suggest that the real problem here is not illegal immigration, but securing our borders.  We can't do that with millions of people streaming across them in search of employment, so I propose to eliminate that as a problem.



> Once again, the end result is not lower prices, but massive multi-million dollar bonuses for the corporate executives.  There have been few price reductions relative to inflation due to illegal immigrant workers.



There would be no way of proving that, since we've always had illegal immigrant workers since we started refusing to let them come across at will to work here.

I state that 

a) we cannot, no matter what we do, secure the borders in their present condition.  It is physically not possible.

b) even if we could, we do not possess the political will to do so (Arizona may be a valid exception)

c) the real problem is not illegal workers, but securing the borders.

d) if we cannot reduce demand (for cheap labor) and we cannot reduce supply (of illegal workers), it is logical to remove the barrier to legally coming here to work.

e) once completed, the only people coming across the border will be the kind of people we *do* want to catch, and they'll be much easier to catch, with all the manpower we currently use to catch illegal workers devoted to that instead.

Now, I propose racism as a basic reason why many people do not want to do this because it clearly fixes the _'we must control our borders'_ problem, yet they do not want to hear it.  They won't even acknowledge it.  They say _"we must control our borders"_ and this will do that, but no, that's not acceptable.  So their real problem is apparently *not* that they want to control the borders.

Press them on the issue, and they begin to spout other reasons instead.  Oh, they don't like the fact that illegal aliens cause crime.  They don't like the fact that illegal aliens use social services they don't pay for.  They don't like the fact that they come here and have 'anchor babies' who are now citizens.  They don't like the fact that they refuse to speak English and that the USA is slowly becoming a spanish-speaking nation.

First, what do those things have to do with securing our borders?  Nothing.

Second, many of those claims are overblown hysterical lies which have been refuted time and time again, but which are still circulated via email and posts on discussion forums like this one as if they were true:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/

Third, and this is the kicker, most of those 'problems' would be removed if the illegal aliens were legal workers.  They'd be paying taxes, we would have a clearer understanding of their costs to the nation via social services versus their contributions via labor and taxes, because we could track them.  They could buy health insurance and avoid incurring costs to the nation by waiting until near death and then visiting emergency rooms as they do now.  They could be required to learn English as a condition of remaining here for an extended period.  So what's the problem?

Well, when pressed again,  those same people simply dig in their heels and repeat the same old mantra.  In other words, they don't want ANY solution that allows immigrant workers here legally.  It's not about speaking spanish or using hospital services, it never was.

So that leaves us with the question.  If the problem is not the above, then what is it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2010)

Joab said:


> How do you know they have zero chance of occuring? There not completely outlandish ideas, it's not like I'm suggesting we nuke the border between Mexico or the USA or something.



Not enough cops.  Not enough jails.  Not enough political will to do it.

Notice how well we do stopping illegal drugs from coming into the USA.  Notice how well we stopped illegal booze from coming into the country during Prohibition.   We (the people) want the benefits of illegal migrant workers, and so they come.  It won't work because we don't want it to, we don't have the money, we don't have the cops, and we don't have enough places to put them all if we did.

Zero chance of occurring.


----------



## Gary Crawford (May 11, 2010)

I got this in my email a few days ago and I think it might help clarify things. 

Absolutely great  analysis by an Arizona state senator. We are in trouble.




I'm Arizona State Senator  Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which I 
voted for and was  just signed by Governor Jan Brewer. 
Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered  by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. 
I participated in a  senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, 
here is just  some of the highlights from those who testified. 

The people who  live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have 
for  years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily 
invasion  of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 
to  1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, 
stealing  his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving 
trash.  In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran 
bibles.  

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across  his ranch in a 
military operation. A point man with a machine gun  goes in front, 1/2 mile 
behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile  behind them are the drugs, 
behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more  guards. These people are violent and they 
will kill anyone who gets  in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard 
that day that  talked about the drug trains. 

One man told of two illegal's who  came upon his property one shot in the 
back and the other in the arm  by the drug runners who had forced them to 
carry the drugs and then  shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the 
night it is not  safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't 
leave  the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back. 

The  border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with  
check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not  allowed to 
use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run  around chasing them, 
if they get their hands on them then they can  take them back across the 
border. 

Federal prisons have over  35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are 
filled with illegal's.  In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that 
have been  killed or wounded have been by an illegal. 

The majority of  people coming now are people we need to be worried about. 
The  ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they 
are  not just those who are looking for work and a better life. 

The  Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the 
border  states. We have been over run and once they are here we have the 
burden  of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been 
over  a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our State 
is  broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make.  
One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not  here 
legally. It has to stop. 
The border can be secured. We have  the technology we have the ability to 
stop this invasion. We must  know who is coming and they must come in an 
organized manner legally  so that we can assimilate them into our population 
and protect the  sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have 
a  responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of  our 
country and the government which we live under. 

I would  give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do 
this  until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them because 
thousands  will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that 
there  will no longer be the United States of America but a North American 
Union  of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under? 
How  long will it be before we will be just like Mexico, Canada or any of  the 
other Central American or South American countries? We have  already lost our 
language, everything must be printed in Spanish  also. We have already lost 
our history it is no longer taught in our  schools. And we have lost our 
borders. 

The leftist media  has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set 
up a Nazi  Germany. Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts will do 
everything  to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to 
try  and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and employment, and 
receiving  state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when 
there  is probable cause like a traffic stop to determine if they are here 
legally.  Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have 
your  papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to  
show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD  identification card, 
Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is  what you need to vote, get a 
hunting license, etc.. So nothing new  has been added to this law. No one is 
going to be stopped walking  down the street etc... The Socialist who are in 
power in DC are  angry because we dare try and do something and that 
something the  Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the 
"Transformation"  to continue. 

Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are  not worthy of freedom 
anymore. But as an elected official I must  try to do what I can to protect 
our Constitutional Republic. Living  in America is not a right just because 
you can walk across the  border. Being an American is a responsibility and it 
comes by  respecting and upholding the Constitution the law of our land which 
says  what you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free. 





​


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2010)

Gary Crawford said:


> I got this in my email a few days ago and I think it might help clarify things.



It doesn't, because it is full of half-truths and lies.

As it states in my link to Factcheck.org, 33% of all federal prisoners are NOT illegal aliens.  It's a lie.  And that's just one of her many mistakes.

And as to her other statements about drug dealers - just as I said - eliminate the millions of illegal immigrants streaming over the fences in search of work, and what remains (drug dealers, terrorists, other criminals) will be MUCH EASIER to catch.  How is this difficult to understand?

Here is the basis of her argument, once you strip away the lies and distortions and half-truths:




> The border can be secured. We have  the technology we have the ability to
> stop this invasion. We must  know who is coming and they must come in an
> organized manner legally  so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the  sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a  responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of  our country and the government which we live under.




No, the border cannot be secured as things are today.  Period.  We're trying with all our might to do it and we can't do it.  More people, more technology, and more jails, and we still can't do it.  And we lack the political will to do it; the people don't want it done (Arizona being a possible exception).

We *can* secure the border if we eliminate 99/100's of the people coming across the fences, by making it possible for them to come through legally.

If the goal is to secure the border, then there is a way to do it.



> I would  give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this  until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them because thousands  will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there  will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union  of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under?


Yep, there it is.  It's not illegal workers they fear, but that they speak spanish and bring their ways with them and they change the character of the nation.  Fear is the reason.  Fear of being a minority, fear of the base of the nation changing.  Fear and dislike.  Some call that racism.



> How  long will it be before we will be just like Mexico, Canada or any of  the
> other Central American or South American countries? We have  already lost our language, everything must be printed in Spanish  also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught in our  schools. And we have lost our
> borders.



Them awful bad Mexicans.  Tell me that's not fear, hatred, and racism.  Explain that to me.

And of course, even that fear could be alleviated.  Make learning English a requirement of continued legal stay in the USA.

By the way, this is the state senator that believes that the earth is 6,000 years old:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/06/arizona-is-6000-years-old/

Here's her voting record (some of which I agree with):

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=28166

Here are her answers to the Political Courage Test:

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=28166

I like some of her stances, because I am after all a conservative; but she also appears to me to be a bit of a nutter.  And her reply to why she supported Arizona's new law on illegal aliens is full of untruths that have been proven to be untrue.  Sad.


----------



## Gary Crawford (May 11, 2010)

"the people don't want it done" Now there is an outright lie! The truth is the PEOPLE do want it done. Of course my statement holds just about as much water as yours because WE (you and I) do not represent the people, but I can assume the large number of unemployed people (me being one of them) DO want it done. I really don't care what is legal,but if it takes shooting them as they cross the border ILLEGALLY,then so be it!!!!!!!


----------



## Archangel M (May 11, 2010)

The high percentage of Arizona citizens (something like 70%) who support the law and complain about the issues described above say more than a few loudmouths on the net IMO.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2010)

Gary Crawford said:


> "the people don't want it done" Now there is an outright lie! The truth is the PEOPLE do want it done.




As I have stated, when polled, citizens want the borders secured.  So do I.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-03-immigration-poll_N.htm




> Two-thirds of Americans want the government to do a better job of securing the borders, but they are sympathetic to illegal immigrants who have been working hard and staying out of trouble, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
> 
> 
> Eight in 10 Americans are concerned that illegal immigrants burden schools, hospitals and other government services, and 77% worry that they drive down wages, the poll finds.
> ...





> Eighty percent of all respondents are very or somewhat concerned that allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the USA might encourage others to move here illegally.



So no, sir, it is not a lie.

The people want a mixed bag.  They want the borders secure, but they worry about illegal immigration and it's stress on the economy.  They worry that allowing illegal immigrants to stay would encourage more illegal immigration.

And I agree, as I said.  Securing the border can be done by eliminating the need for illegal aliens seeking work to climb over the fence - in a word, amnesty.  Keeping additional illegal aliens out can be fixed by creating a meaningful work permit program that allows all law-abiding citizens of other countries to work in the USA upon application.  Then the border will not be stressed by millions upon millions of illegal aliens climbing the fence.  The border can be defended with 99/100's of the people who are climbing over the fence no longer do so.


But is it really about the border?  



> Of course my statement holds just about as much water as yours because WE (you and I) do not represent the people, but I can assume the large number of unemployed people (me being one of them) DO want it done. I really don't care what is legal,but if it takes shooting them as they cross the border ILLEGALLY,then so be it!!!!!!!



So it's not really about the border at all.  It's about you wanting a job.  Believe me, I'm not that far from where you are myself.  But I don't think that anyone working in a lettuce field has my job.  I don't think I want to work in a lettuce field, even if unemployed (although I'll do anything if I have to in order to survive).  My threats to my employment come from outsourcing IT work overseas.  And that's not about borders either.

So while both of us are concerned about our jobs, it really isn't about securing our borders.

If the concern is securing our borders, there are ways to do that.  But when pressed, like you, most who claim to want secure borders really want something else.  They just *say* they want secure borders.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> The high percentage of Arizona citizens (something like 70%) who support the law and complain about the issues described above say more than a few loudmouths on the net IMO.




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/06/most-arizonans-back-new-immigration-law/



> A Rocky Mountain Poll conducted by the Behavior Research Center and released Wednesday found that 52 percent of Arizonans support the measure, with 39 percent opposed and the rest undecided.



A majority, to be sure; but not 70 percent.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/05/majority-of-arizonans-favor-new-immigration-law/



> That's roughly the same outcome that a New York Times/CBS News poll,conducted April 28 - May 2, found nationally: 51 percent said the law, aimed at reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the state, was "about right," while 36 percent percent said it went too far, 9 percent said it did not go far enough, and 4 percent were undecided. A Gallup poll conducted April 27-28 also had 51 percent of those who had heard of the law supporting its enactment, compared with 39 percent opposed.



Oh, wait.  I see.  Rasmussen Reports:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._measure_cracking_down_on_illegal_immigration



> A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.



The problem, of course, is that Rasmussen has often been criticized for only polling "likely voters" and not the general public.  But as always people believe the numbers they like the best.

In any case, a majority of people in Arizona approve of the new law.  I'm not at all sure how that is the 'real answer in getting rid of illegal aliens', but I guess we'll find out, eh?


----------



## Gary Crawford (May 11, 2010)

How many polls are there out there? It's a large number,so large that I can spend all day studying them and still have not read all of them. The point is,if you quote polls,you can get ANY number you want to support your argument. The basic facts are that the borders need to be secured somehow to protect us (American citizens) from spending our tax dollars (that we cannot afford) on health care education ect., from drug dealers and terrorist. This is a true threat to our nation,more now than ever before. I have no problem with Mexican people and understand their desire to come here for a better life,but let them do it legally. I do believe the Arizona State Senator knows a hell of of a lot more about what is going on in her own state than some guy in Michigan.


----------



## Gary Crawford (May 11, 2010)

and now for something positive. McCain isn't my favorite person,but he's right on this one-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lwusMxiHc


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It will be interesting to see if the new law in Arizona passes Constitutional muster. If it does, then I have no complaint about the Arizona law. However, I have some serious doubts that it is going to have much of an effect on the illegal alien problem in Arizona.


 
Personally, I don't see how it could not.  They aren't enforcing the law in the traditional sense.  They are gathering information and turning them over to the actual enforcement agency.  I would also argue that the Federal government has handed out this specific power before, therefore making it available for local agency use.  But it will be interesting.  




> The politicians do not possess the political will to enforce the existing laws because their constituents and major contributors do not want them enforced. Americans, when polled, say we are for more stringent enforcement. Yet we continue to not demand it of their elected leaders, and we reelect leaders who do not introduce legislation to require tougher legislation. We say one thing, but we want another.
> 
> We get what we elect.


 
I agree that we get what we elect.  Up until now, though there have been few alternatives with the leaders we are *allowed* to elect.  In those states, such as Arizona, where there are real differences, it has been done, hence the Arizona law.  



> We haven't had immigration reform so far. Just fits and starts. Half-assed attempts that were doomed to failure.


 
And so will every other one in the politicians need to attempt to satisfy everyone.  Even if they attempt your proposal, there will be things in the legislation that cause it to be utterly screwed up.   




> That's not for workers, it is for employers. They have to apply in advance of their needs, they have to prove that no citizens would apply for the jobs if they advertised for them (by advertising for them), and they have to pay minimum wage, provide free food and housing for the workers, and it's only for agricultural workers, not roofers, gardeners, and other contractors. About 30,000 such visas are issued, because employers see them as much more expensive than hiring illegals through shill companies that certify them as legal when they're not, providing a pleasant fiction.


 
Understood.  The fact of the matter is that there is a process to get migrant workers from other countries into the U.S., and not just for agricultural workers.  You can argue that it needs to be reformed, but to say that it doesn't exist would be disingenuous.  

But, if I read you right, your plan would be to let them in regardless of whether there are jobs for them.  Not only that, but they would be allowed to displace U.S. citizens for jobs.  Not only that, but be eligible for the same benefits as a U.S. citizen.  

As I said in another thread, what would then be the point of being a citizen of the U.S.?




> Why do we offshore jobs? Why do we build factories in counties which don't pay competitive wages compared to the USA? Because it lowers the cost of production. Labor has and will remain one of the largest factors in producing goods and services. Some labor can't easily be shipped overseas, such as picking lettuce or roofing houses, so they bring the workers here.


 
Yes, and increasing the pocket books of CEO's and other managers.  You make the assumption that these cost saving go into price savings at the market.  I don't think that is the case, at least when it comes to large businesses.

According to your argument, companies take advantage of illegal immigrants and pay them lower wages than are mandated by State and Federal law.  This, in turn, causes the consumer price of the product to be lowered.  

However, if we have the worker program that you suggest, companies would be forced to pay the State or Federal minimum wage.  This in turn, would cause those low prices that you talk about to rise.  So, whether they are staffed by U.S. Citizens, or your new legal migrant workers, the consumer price would still rise.

Unless you are suggesting that we pay migrant workers what we now pay illegal immigrants.  Either way, your solution has solved nothing.



> Do markets adjust themselves? Sure, as long as everyone plays along. But that very supply and demand you speak of causes the demand for illegal workers to remain high - all it takes is one competitor in the area who uses cheap illegal labor, to undercut all his competition. Then the others must follow suit or they cannot compete with his prices. The law of supply and demand also means that in a market where low price is the driving force, the lowest price wins. It is just as you describe but fail to recognize; the lowest price causes others to have to do as the low-price leader does. Either by innovation or by copying. There's not a lot of innovation in roofing houses or picking lettuce these days, so they lower prices by hiring cheaper labor. The illegal kind.


 
Yes, but if you prevent them from using illegal immigrant workers in the first place, the problem is solved, and the only price issue that will happen is that of supply and demand.



> When did we not have illegal immigration to the USA for purposes of finding employment?


 
Can't rightly say.  However, just because we had undocumented labor doesn't mean it was illegal.  It all depends on when such laws were written.  

However, we also have to ask ourselves what is the historical effect of thie illegal immigrant labor.  I contend that it has become much worse in the last few decades then before.



> You are demanding the lowest prices - we all do. Demanding the lowest price requires businesses to compete on price rather than quality.


 
I do not.  I demand the lowest price based on the quality of product that I can choose to buy.  That is not the same thing.  Sometimes I am satisfied with cheap quality, other times not.  I want the price to be competitive within the measure of quality that I desire.



> They cut costs wherever they can to compete for the lowest price to win our business. Labor is one of the largest expenses there is. I have had not one, not two, but three pay cuts from my employer, while they continue to expand their use of offshore IT workers. Why? They're cheaper, that's why, and our customers demand the lowest price and will choose our competitors to provide it if they have a lower price. I'm not happy about it, but low price requires cost-cutting, and in areas that cannot offshore employment legally, illegal immigration often serves the same purpose. So yes, you're demanding illegal immigrants come here and do the work so your lettuce can be very cheap.


 
Yes, and ultimately, when the quality of the service goes down beyond what they are willing to accept, they will no longer procure that service or good, forcing the company to change it's policy.

But, I look at shipping jobs oversea as another problem, though not entirely unrelated. 



> I'm not blaming anyone for anything. It is what it is. We want the benefits of low-paid workers without allowing illegal immigration, and we can't have both, it's not physically possible. So either we take the one or we take the other. I suggest that the real problem here is not illegal immigration, but securing our borders. We can't do that with millions of people streaming across them in search of employment, so I propose to eliminate that as a problem.


 
But your solution doesn't solve the problem, as I believe I showed above. 




> Now, I propose racism as a basic reason why many people do not want to do this because it clearly fixes the _'we must control our borders'_ problem, yet they do not want to hear it. They won't even acknowledge it. They say _"we must control our borders"_ and this will do that, but no, that's not acceptable. So their real problem is apparently *not* that they want to control the borders.


 
Soooo, unless they agree with your solution as to how to control the border they must have some ulterior motive based on racism.  I don't see it.  



> Press them on the issue, and they begin to spout other reasons instead. Oh, they don't like the fact that illegal aliens cause crime. They don't like the fact that illegal aliens use social services they don't pay for. They don't like the fact that they come here and have 'anchor babies' who are now citizens. They don't like the fact that they refuse to speak English and that the USA is slowly becoming a spanish-speaking nation.


 
All of which are valid reasons which do not necessarily have anything to do with racism.  These things may be true or not, but it does not necessarily mean that these people believe that they are inherently better then Mexicans, just that there are cultural issues that they don't want in their community.

I wouldn't want to import a group of people that believe in the killing of Black people for sport, the rape of women at leisure, or the beating of women when they disrepect their men as part of their culture.  That does not mean that I believe they they are inherently "less" than me.

It's like one of my white co-workers has said:  "I would rather live in a community of Black conservatives, than a group of white liberals."  



> Second, many of those claims are overblown hysterical lies which have been refuted time and time again, but which are still circulated via email and posts on discussion forums like this one as if they were true:


 
Your post refutes the contents of one e-mail.  How about these factual statistics.

75% of all outstanding felony warrants in Los Angeles County are for illegal immigrants.

About 90% of hit & runs in my department which are solved were caused by illegal immigrants.

Roughly 75% of all DUI arrests are committed by illegal immigrants.

And though the country may regard the children of illegal immigrants as citizens, we can also argue that the crimes and problems that the problems caused by some of those same children are a result of illegal immigration.  If their parents had not come here illegally, then they would not be here to have committed these problems.  

So, although your source states that: "The $2.5 billion figure for Medicaid to such households is quoted accurately, but again, much of this was in benefits for U.S.-born children, who are citizens,"  they would not cost us even that figure if their parents had not come here illegally.  So, illegal immigration is still the source of the problem.



> Third, and this is the kicker, most of those 'problems' would be removed if the illegal aliens were legal workers. They'd be paying taxes, we would have a clearer understanding of their costs to the nation via social services versus their contributions via labor and taxes, because we could track them. They could buy health insurance and avoid incurring costs to the nation by waiting until near death and then visiting emergency rooms as they do now. They could be required to learn English as a condition of remaining here for an extended period. So what's the problem?


 
No they would not.  And one reason being is how do you force a legal worker to learn English.  Hell, we can barely teach our own citizens proper English. 

We could, you are correct in pointing out, differentiate their cost versus their contribution.  But knowing that doesn't actually solve any problem.  



> Well, when pressed again, those same people simply dig in their heels and repeat the same old mantra. In other words, they don't want ANY solution that allows immigrant workers here legally. It's not about speaking spanish or using hospital services, it never was.
> 
> So that leaves us with the question. If the problem is not the above, then what is it?


 
I think that its not that they / we don't want *any *migrant workers.  But, as I already stated, they should be seasonal and go back to their country of origin after the season.  Or, they should integrate, which history is showing that they will not do.


----------



## Carol (May 11, 2010)

Once you secure a person's status in the US, that means their status is no longer at risk.   They can take legal action against an employer for offering sub-minimum wage without fear of deportation, yes?   Or for working conditions that do not meet OSHA standards?   

That would still create a market demand for illegal workers that are willing for sub-minimum wage that will probably not be whistleblowers out of fear for their status being discovered.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2010)

Carol said:


> Once you secure a person's status in the US, that means their status is no longer at risk.   They can take legal action against an employer for offering sub-minimum wage without fear of deportation, yes?   Or for working conditions that do not meet OSHA standards?
> 
> That would still create a market demand for illegal workers that are willing for sub-minimum wage that will probably not be whistleblowers out of fear for their status being discovered.



Right now, the community of illegal aliens supports each other.  Once a legal avenue is available, it will be in their best interest to ensure that illegal aliens do not find work or refuge.  The lifeboat scenario; everyone wants to get on, and will do anything to get that.  Once on, they don't want anyone else to get in and swamp the boat.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2010)

Gary Crawford said:


> The basic facts are that the borders need to be secured somehow to protect us (American citizens) from spending our tax dollars (that we cannot afford) on health care education ect., from drug dealers and terrorist.



True.  I have said that.  Now, if illegal workers no longer need to sneak over the border, you have eliminated the majority of border issues right there.

Drug dealers and terrorists will still sneak across, but now they'll have a much smaller crowd in which to hide.  More cops per crook guarding the border, since fewer people are coming over.  That's a win-win.

As far as 'health care costs', that has nothing to do with border control.  That's a complaint about what illegal workers cost us in health care and other services.  And you're right, they do.  So if they're legal and paying taxes, they are paying for their services, huh?  End of problem.  Keeping them illegal is what is making it cost us money for the services they consume.



> This is a true threat to our nation,more now than ever before. I have no problem with Mexican people and understand their desire to come here for a better life,but let them do it legally.



Great.  Amnesty and a guest worker program that lets all non-criminal workers into the USA will do that.



> I do believe the Arizona State Senator knows a hell of of a lot more about what is going on in her own state than some guy in Michigan.



Nice try.  I'm hella smarter than she is, and I can prove it any day of the week.  She thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and has said so on video.  I win.  End of discussion.


----------



## Archangel M (May 11, 2010)

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/2061868-Ark-cop-shot-recovering-at-home/


----------



## Gary Crawford (May 12, 2010)

"Nice try.  I'm hella smarter than she is,  and I can prove it any day of the week.  She thinks the earth is 6,000  years old and has said so on video.  I win.  End of discussion. 		 		  		  		 		  		 		"    Now why did you have to do that?  It was a discussion about solving a problem and you had to not only throw out something completely irrelevant, but insult every Christian reading this. I not only agree with her,  it is the truth. Very sad you do not believe. I feel very sorry for you and won't waste any more time discussing anything with you. Best wishes and I did say a prayer for you.


----------



## elder999 (May 12, 2010)

Gary Crawford said:


> " Now why did you have to do that? It was a discussion about solving a problem and you had to not only throw out something completely irrelevant, but insult every Christian reading this. I not only agree with her, it is the truth. Very sad you do not believe. I feel very sorry for you and won't waste any more time discussing anything with you. Best wishes and I did say a prayer for you.


 
I'm pretty sure it wasn't an insult to every Christian reading it-not every Christian believes that the "Earth is 6,000 years old." 

Like Bill himself, obviously.....

In any case, it's not "the truth." It's not even what the Bible says.

I mean, there are artifacts-as in "objects made by the hands of man" that are older than that.....I mean, they just discovered an 8,000 year old building in Israel a little while ago....:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/tech/main6083687.shtml


----------



## CanuckMA (May 12, 2010)

Gary Crawford said:


> "Nice try. I'm hella smarter than she is, and I can prove it any day of the week. She thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and has said so on video. I win. End of discussion.                                                               " Now why did you have to do that? It was a discussion about solving a problem and you had to not only throw out something completely irrelevant, but insult every Christian reading this. I not only agree with her, it is the truth. Very sad you do not believe. I feel very sorry for you and won't waste any more time discussing anything with you. Best wishes and I did say a prayer for you.


 

Oh good grief. While we us that to count our years, it's now 5770, even Orthodox Jews don't hold by that. Rashi, one of the greatest commentators on Torah, does not hold that Genesis is literally 6 24-hour days.


----------



## elder999 (May 12, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Oh good grief. While we us that to count our years, it's now 5770, even Orthodox Jews don't hold by that. Rashi, one of the greatest commentators on Torah, does not hold that Genesis is literally 6 24-hour days.


 

And, in fact, the very notion that the Genesis creation myth is anything but allegorical is something that arose during medieval times-prior to that, contemporary church fathers wrote-along with most Torah commentary-that it was allegorical. 

Believing a literal interpretation of Genesis is literally _dark age thinking._


----------



## Joab (May 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not enough cops. Not enough jails. Not enough political will to do it.
> 
> Your right, we don't have enough jails to put illegal aliens in them. I'm not advocating putting illegal aliens in jail, I'm advocating fines so high that companies that profit from hiring illegal aliens  will no longer be able to profit from it due to the size of the fines. There is enough space in the jail to put a CEO of a corporation in one whose corporation repeatedly hires illegals over and over and over again.
> 
> ...


 
No, it does not have zero chance of occuring. Tell me why an illegal alien would agree to pay a fine, learne English, than go to the end lof the line to immigrate when he is already here getting his chunk of the American dream? That is what has zero chance of occuring! My idea probably won't happen because it makes to much sense, by making it unprofitable to hire illegal aliens there would soon be no illegal aliens and the problem would disappear. There are vested interests that like the way things are because they are making a lot of money with the way things are going with the taxpayers paying for a lot of it, the American workers being undercut, and the illegals risking and sometimes losing their lives coming here and getting crap wages that are better than what they would get in Mexico but less than they really deserve, with the threat and often the reality of being kicked back to Mexico anytime.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2010)

Joab said:


> No, it does not have zero chance of occuring. Tell me why an illegal alien would agree to pay a fine, learne English, than go to the end lof the line to immigrate when he is already here getting his chunk of the American dream?



He would not have to go to the end of the line to immigrate, he'd have to go to the end of the line to gain citizenship.  He'd do it because he would immediately have access to health care insurance (currently illegal for illegal aliens under the new HCR law), he'd be covered under OSHA and other workplace regulations, and he would no longer have to live in a cash-based society, preyed upon by criminals and afraid to report crimes for fear of being arrested and deported.  He would no longer have to live in the shadows.  That's why.



> That is what has zero chance of occuring! My idea probably won't happen because it makes to much sense, by making it unprofitable to hire illegal aliens there would soon be no illegal aliens and the problem would disappear.



It is already illegal to hire illegal aliens.  The laws are not being enforced.  There is very little chance of them being enforced, for the reasons I have stated.  If the laws were enforced, it would not stop the casual labor market, it would only stop the field and factory workers.



> There are vested interests that like the way things are because they are making a lot of money with the way things are going with the taxpayers paying for a lot of it, the American workers being undercut, and the illegals risking and sometimes losing their lives coming here and getting crap wages that are better than what they would get in Mexico but less than they really deserve, with the threat and often the reality of being kicked back to Mexico anytime.



Yes, that is correct.  And that is also driven by the American citizen, who purchases based on low prices.  That is why it will not change.

So the question still remains.  Do you want to secure the border?  Bitching about why your way won't work isn't helping.  An immigration policy that allows for amnesty for the illegal aliens here now and future workers to enter legally will do that.  If you want the border secured, that's how you do it.  If you do not want the border secured, carry on complaining about how existing law is not being enforced, I guess.  It will continue to not be enforced, and the problems will continue.

I like fixing problems.  There is a way to fix this one.  Swimming upstream against existing desires isn't the way to get this one done.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> He would not have to go to the end of the line to immigrate, he'd have to go to the end of the line to gain citizenship. He'd do it because he would immediately have access to health care insurance (currently illegal for illegal aliens under the new HCR law), he'd be covered under OSHA and other workplace regulations, and he would no longer have to live in a cash-based society, preyed upon by criminals and afraid to report crimes for fear of being arrested and deported. He would no longer have to live in the shadows. That's why.
> 
> Yes, that is correct. And that is also driven by the American citizen, who purchases based on low prices. That is why it will not change.
> 
> ...


 
And you have still yet to explain the benefit to the U.S. citizen for doing this.  You said it would keep prices low, because "we demand it", but your statement above gives lie to that.  Also, it still doesn't account for how it would end illegal immigration as there would still be a black market for cheap, illegal immigrant labor.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And so will every other one in the politicians need to attempt to satisfy everyone.  Even if they attempt your proposal, there will be things in the legislation that cause it to be utterly screwed up.



I agree with you on this point.



> Understood.  The fact of the matter is that there is a process to get migrant workers from other countries into the U.S., and not just for agricultural workers.  You can argue that it needs to be reformed, but to say that it doesn't exist would be disingenuous.



OK, fair enough.  It exists and is not being used by employers due to limitations that make it unattractive for them to pursue.



> But, if I read you right, your plan would be to let them in regardless of whether there are jobs for them.  Not only that, but they would be allowed to displace U.S. citizens for jobs.  Not only that, but be eligible for the same benefits as a U.S. citizen.



Yep.  I compete for my job with overseas IT workers every day. Why should a car salesman be different?

However, the vast majority of these workers are as we currently see them; unskilled labor.



> As I said in another thread, what would then be the point of being a citizen of the U.S.?



_"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."_ I think I read that somewhere.

Let me answer your question with a question.  What would be the point of denying citizenship to others once you have it yourself?  Nice club, is it exclusive, or can anybody join?  And to those that say they welcome those who follow the rules, I agree.  I recommend changing the rules.




> Yes, and increasing the pocket books of CEO's and other managers.  You make the assumption that these cost saving go into price savings at the market.  I don't think that is the case, at least when it comes to large businesses.



Profit rules, of course.  And when selling lettuce, low price rules.  Unless you have a market that pays more for perceived added value - like organic veggies, etc, lettuce is lettuce and people buy what is cheapest.  So yes, low price wins every time in that case, and even large corporations have to move that produce before it spoils.



> According to your argument, companies take advantage of illegal immigrants and pay them lower wages than are mandated by State and Federal law.  This, in turn, causes the consumer price of the product to be lowered.



Yep.



> However, if we have the worker program that you suggest, companies would be forced to pay the State or Federal minimum wage.  This in turn, would cause those low prices that you talk about to rise.  So, whether they are staffed by U.S. Citizens, or your new legal migrant workers, the consumer price would still rise.



Yep.  Although we could work out a 'non-citizen' labor wage, as a suggestion.  Or we could accept that prices will rise, but the illegal aliens won't be such a drag on society anymore since they'll be able to buy health insurance and pay into the services they currently receive.



> Unless you are suggesting that we pay migrant workers what we now pay illegal immigrants.  Either way, your solution has solved nothing.



Solved the border control problem, which I see as numero uno.  Created a solution to illegal aliens using services they didn't pay for, numero dos.  Lowered crime by giving now-legal aliens the ability to report crimes against them, numero tres.  I'm sure there are more.



> Yes, but if you prevent them from using illegal immigrant workers in the first place, the problem is solved, and the only price issue that will happen is that of supply and demand.



If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.  We can't prevent it.  Haven't the will, haven't the money, haven't the cops, haven't the jails.

Has enforcement stopped illegal drugs?  Has it stopped prostitution?  Did it stop booze trafficking during prohibition?  We dont' want it stopped, hence it will not stop.  Continuing to propose a solution that can't happen is not a solution.



> Can't rightly say.  However, just because we had undocumented labor doesn't mean it was illegal.  It all depends on when such laws were written.



My point is that there is no 'sudden influx' of illegal alien workers.  We've had them since dot.



> However, we also have to ask ourselves what is the historical effect of thie illegal immigrant labor.  I contend that it has become much worse in the last few decades then before.



I propose a cure for that.



> I do not.  I demand the lowest price based on the quality of product that I can choose to buy.  That is not the same thing.  Sometimes I am satisfied with cheap quality, other times not.  I want the price to be competitive within the measure of quality that I desire.



Not most people who shop at Wal-Mart, and they are more than you or me.



> Yes, and ultimately, when the quality of the service goes down beyond what they are willing to accept, they will no longer procure that service or good, forcing the company to change it's policy.



Very seldom.



> But, I look at shipping jobs oversea as another problem, though not entirely unrelated.



But it isn't going to change.  So I deal with trying to keep my job using whatever advantages I possess, rather than railing about how unfair it is that my company keeps shipping more and more jobs overseas.  I can't change the latter, I might be able to influence the former.  Do we want to solve problems, or complain about them?



> Soooo, unless they agree with your solution as to how to control the border they must have some ulterior motive based on racism.  I don't see it.



When people say their main concern is securing the border, and then dance around and come with a thousand different non-border-related reasons why they would never agree to an amnesty or a meaningful guest worker program, they have another agenda.  When they start throwing their fear of people speaking Spanish or their American culture changing and how it bothers them, I begin to perceive what that agenda is.  I doubt they look themselves in the mirror and admit they're racists.  But you tell me what you call it when people are not really interested in any solution that does not involve everyone who speaks Spanish and has brown skin going home right now?



> All of which are valid reasons which do not necessarily have anything to do with racism.  These things may be true or not, but it does not necessarily mean that these people believe that they are inherently better then Mexicans, just that there are cultural issues that they don't want in their community.



Xenophobia is akin to racism.  Nobody likes change at first, but the USA is a polyglot society.  Most of us have ancestors who came here and were segregated for one reason or another by those already here, or who chose to segregate themselves.  We're a society based on change. I live in Detroit, which is hugely diverse.  From polish-based Hamtramck to largely Middle-Eastern Dearborn, we run the gamut.  Spanish-speaking?  Dude, I go grocery shopping next to people wearing chadors or yamulkes and speaking every language I ever heard of.



> I wouldn't want to import a group of people that believe in the killing of Black people for sport, the rape of women at leisure, or the beating of women when they disrepect their men as part of their culture.  That does not mean that I believe they they are inherently "less" than me.



I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that Hispanic immigrants not be required to follow US laws.  Not even aware of any cultural beliefs they have that would chap most of us.



> It's like one of my white co-workers has said:  "I would rather live in a community of Black conservatives, than a group of white liberals."



Interesting observation.



> Your post refutes the contents of one e-mail.  How about these factual statistics.
> 
> 75% of all outstanding felony warrants in Los Angeles County are for illegal immigrants.
> 
> ...



I answer them as I do the others,  untrue.  They've been debunked more times than I can remember.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

And when people continue to cling to and repeat false rumors, it leads one to believe certain things about them.  Know what I mean?



> And though the country may regard the children of illegal immigrants as citizens, we can also argue that the crimes and problems that the problems caused by some of those same children are a result of illegal immigration.  If their parents had not come here illegally, then they would not be here to have committed these problems.



Yep.  If we never let the Italians in, we'd have no Mafia.



> So, although your source states that: "The $2.5 billion figure for Medicaid to such households is quoted accurately, but again, much of this was in benefits for U.S.-born children, who are citizens,"  they would not cost us even that figure if their parents had not come here illegally.  So, illegal immigration is still the source of the problem.



If they're legal and paying taxes, then they are paying into the system they take money from.  Like citizens do now.



> No they would not.  And one reason being is how do you force a legal worker to learn English.  Hell, we can barely teach our own citizens proper English.



Competency tests.  We can't force citizens to speak English because a) no national law regarding language and b) you can't take away their citizenship for not speaking correctly.  With immigrants, you have a stick; no citizenship until they master it to a given degree.



> We could, you are correct in pointing out, differentiate their cost versus their contribution.  But knowing that doesn't actually solve any problem.



It gives us planning tools, which does allow us to solve problems, and it beats rough guesses, which get blown up 1000% and then repeated in endless hate-filled emails someone insists on posting on various discussion forums.  Hehehe.



> I think that its not that they / we don't want *any *migrant workers.  But, as I already stated, they should be seasonal and go back to their country of origin after the season.  Or, they should integrate, which history is showing that they will not do.



Yeah, it's that some (or most?) don't want ANY migrant workers, period.  They keep coming up with more and more minute points of law, obscure references to emails that they read, arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and anything they can think of to defend why they're not really racist, but they still don't want illegal aliens to get amnesty or a blanket alien worker program.  It's pretty clear what they want, as I've been saying.  I know they get all puffed up and angry when called racists, but I can't think of another word for them when they go to such lengths to find ANY reason why they should be kept out / sent packing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And you have still yet to explain the benefit to the U.S. citizen for doing this.  You said it would keep prices low, because "we demand it", but your statement above gives lie to that.  Also, it still doesn't account for how it would end illegal immigration as there would still be a black market for cheap, illegal immigrant labor.



I've already addressed it in posts above.  Keep up or take notes.

EDIT:  Sorry, I  forgot the winky thing.  ;-)


----------



## Cryozombie (May 12, 2010)

> I do believe the Arizona State Senator knows a hell of of a lot more about what is going on in her own state than some guy in Michigan.





Bill Mattocks said:


> Nice try.  I'm hella smarter than she is, and I can prove it any day of the week.



Bill, man, I like a lot of what you post, and you have great ideas, but that's just wrong...

Just because you are smarter than her, does not mean you have any real idea of what is going on local to her, 1000's of miles away.  I'm considerably smarter than the bartender at the bar I was drinking at last night who thought the note on the Register that said "Close the Windows at night" referred to a computer (and that's a funny story remind me to relate it sometime) but that doesn't mean I know what goes on daily in her bar.


----------



## Archangel M (May 12, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> but that doesn't mean I know what goes on daily in her bar.



Or that you are better at bartending than she is.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 12, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Just because you are smarter than her, does not mean you have any real idea of what is going on local to her, 1000's of miles away.



It doesn't mean she does, either.  She will run with a certain crowd, visit certain places, shop at certain locations, talk to certain people, etc.  What she knows about the rest of it will be filtered through the lens of the local news, which may or may not be accurate.

Someone thousands of miles away with the proper research at hand may very well know better.

Case in point: one of the commonly cited concerns fueling this immigration bill is that of rising crime.  Yet the stats show that crime has been falling in Arizona for years.  Furthermore, the border war is not spilling into even the border towns on the US side, as attested to by local law enforcement.  So who knows what is going on better, residents fearful of a nonexistent crime wave, or people far away with the stats at hand?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> It's like one of my white co-workers has said:  "I would rather live in a community of Black conservatives, than a group of white liberals."



I've been thinking about that statement your co-worker said all day.  I think it's a racist statement.

If he meant that he preferred the company of conservatives to that of liberals, he could have said that.  But he had to put 'black' and 'white' in it.  What it appears he is saying is _"I prefer the company of white people, but if they are liberal, then I'd prefer the company of black people who are conservative instead."_

It's no crime for people to prefer to be around those with whom the most closely identify, so this has had me turning it over and over again in my mind.  But when I think of the words your co-worker chose, I can't help but see it as a racist statement.  It's a statement of contrast, meant to illustrate how much he prefers the company of conservatives over liberals, but as guideposts, he uses 'white' to denote that which he really likes, and 'black' to denote what he really doesn't like.  It's like saying a person would prefer to eat good food, but they'd eat garbage if the good food were cooked by a liberal and the garbage thrown out by a conservative.  Contrasts.  He likes white people and dislikes black people.  He's trying to show how much he prefers the company of conservatives over liberals, but to do that, he's demonstrating the two things he can think of that represent what he loves and what he hates.

I think your co-worker has some issues, and the least of them may be that he or she is a racist.

But it kind of goes with the line of statements people have been making in this thread.  They're not racist, but they can imagine no circumstances under which they would tolerate massive Hispanic migration to the USA (except for _'go stand in line'_, which they of course know won't happen for all the reasons I've given).  It's like watching a kid come up with reasons why he won't eat his Brussels sprouts.  To hell with logic, he just doesn't like them!


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've been thinking about that statement your co-worker said all day. I think it's a racist statement.
> 
> If he meant that he preferred the company of conservatives to that of liberals, he could have said that. But he had to put 'black' and 'white' in it. What it appears he is saying is _"I prefer the company of white people, but if they are liberal, then I'd prefer the company of black people who are conservative instead."_
> 
> ...


 
if the person is being called a racist because he is bashing liberal ideas then I do not see this comment as being racist at all, but rather a comment about the ideas of liberals... 
If a person were just to randomly make this statement and then follow it up with, now make a statement about just on this comment..... you might have a point. but I think you are reading to much into it, and not looking at the circumstances it was said.  


It almost seems like you are playing devils advocate on this thread today lol


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> if the person is being called a racist because he is bashing liberal ideas then I do not see this comment as being racist at all, but rather a comment about the ideas of liberals...
> If a person were just to randomly make this statement and then follow it up with, now make a statement about just on this comment..... you might have a point. but I think you are reading to much into it, and not looking at the circumstances it was said.



Well, that occurred to me, but if so, then why not simply say he preferred the company of conservatives to liberals and leave it at that?

He used the terms 'black' and 'white' because they mean something to him, and I would presume he thought they would mean something to his audience.  Why black; why white?  They must mean something; so what do they mean?  I can't accept that he used the terms for no reason at all.



> It almost seems like you are playing devils advocate on this thread today lol



Not intentionally.  I get at loggerheads with my conservative brethren over this illegal immigration issue all the time.  I have one goal - secure the border.  I see a clear route to do that.  But it seems many of us don't want to, because when it comes down to brass tacks, they have a different agenda; it's not really about securing our border after all.  That kind of stuff bugs me.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OK, fair enough. It exists and is not being used by employers due to limitations that make it unattractive for them to pursue.


 
So your proposition is to put the immigrant workers desires first, rather then the employers.  I see where you are going with this.



> However, the vast majority of these workers are as we currently see them; unskilled labor.
> 
> Yep. I compete for my job with overseas IT workers every day. Why should a car salesman be different?


 
You mean the mechanics, roofers, construction workers, plumbers, landscapers (not mere lawn cutters), business owners, etc.  Those "unskilled" laborers.

I see that you're from Michigan.  Perhaps you should get out more.  Illegal immigrants do more than pick fruit.  

As for competition, there wouldn't be.  We have a Federal minimum wage, and most States have minimum wages.  As you suggest below, we could have a "non-citizen low wage", mandating a maximum that such people could make.  A citizen worker would not be allowed to accept a "non-citizen" wage because the employer is forced to pay the Federal / State minimum wage.  



> _"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."_ I think I read that somewhere.


 
There is a difference between making individual citizens, as meant in the quote above, and letting people come here as suits there convienence for monetary profit.



> Let me answer your question with a question. What would be the point of denying citizenship to others once you have it yourself? Nice club, is it exclusive, or can anybody join? And to those that say they welcome those who follow the rules, I agree. I recommend changing the rules.


 
See above.  It's not about denying everyone citizenship.  No one has ever made that point.  But I don't have a problem with having criteria.  Apparently you have none. 



> Yep. Although we could work out a 'non-citizen' labor wage, as a suggestion.


 
And this is my other problem.  What you are now arguing is a essentially a new slave class.  At the very least, you are arguing for a legal caste system.



> Or we could accept that prices will rise, but the illegal aliens won't be such a drag on society anymore since they'll be able to buy health insurance and pay into the services they currently receive.


 
Yes, they will be.  From where will they get their health insurance?  From government subsidies.  Hence, they will continue to be a drag on society.  What services will they receive that they could actually pay for, given that you are also making the suggestion of a "non-citizen" low wage.  

Even if we accept that prices will rise, people will only pay so much for a given product.  Do you really think that people will pay $8 for a head of lettuce, regardless of whether that lettuce is picked by a legal worker or immigrant.  I posit to you that some prices will still be acceptable on an individual basis, but the composite effect would be devastating.  Are you trying to destroy the U.S., or solve the problem.



> Solved the border control problem, which I see as numero uno.


 
Yes, if you believe that the sole problem is merely people coming to this country illegally.  But that is not the sole problem.  It is the underlying root cause of the many other problems which are what really concern people.

No one says, "Oh, we just shouldn't have illegal immigrants here just because they are illegal."  The complaint is the effect that those illegal immigrants are having.  And that, you have not solved.



> Created a solution to illegal aliens using services they didn't pay for, numero dos.


 
No, you didn't, because you haven't actually given a way for people to pay for those services.  In fact, your suggestion makes the problem worse.  Under your "solution", those who are now illegal and made citizens would have access to services which they don't currently have.  And yet, they would still have no way to pay for them.  Most would not even make enough to be taxed, especially if we implement your "solution" of a "non-citizen low wage".  Hence, they would get *more* services, but still don't pay anything commesurate into the system.

Your solution also supposes that if they were allowed to get taxable jobs, that somehow that would create those jobs for them to get.  How many gardeners do we need?  Now many fruit pickers do we need?  We're somehow going to magically have more because we have opened the floodgate to even more eligible workers?  I don't think so.

And even if they got all the jobs, those who are citizens would be out of a job and take services which they couldn't pay for.  Hell, some non-citizens, because they can't get work in there own country, and those countries typically don't offer government mandated services, would then come here because they could get more by not working here then they could get by not working there.

Your solution has not only *not *solved the problem, but actually excacerbated it.



> Lowered crime by giving now-legal aliens the ability to report crimes against them, numero tres. I'm sure there are more.


 
I am in law enforcement.  In my experience (what is yours in this, by the way, other then what you heard on the news) illegals have no problems with reporting crime.  We take countless reports from them.   

And, I'm assuming here, considering that you have little experience with the actual workings of law enforcement, such people now reporting crimes would actually "cause crime to go up".  Alot of crimes go unreported, and not just from illegals.  If the reason they chose not to report them was because of their legal status, and they now reported them, crime statistics would actually rise.

What you're also assuming here is that law enforcement would actually be able to solve those crimes.  In most crimes, there is very little suspect information, and what is given are vague physically descriptions given by victims.  And can be accounted for by experts in the field, most descriptions given usually have inaccuracies.  So, just because those crimes are reported doesn't mean that crimes would be solved and go down.    



> If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. We can't prevent it. Haven't the will, haven't the money, haven't the cops, haven't the jails.


 
Haven't the will, granted.

But what I suggest would not cost all that much to have a significant impact, nor would it require gobs of law enforcement.  All you have to do is make it so painful for some high profile people in companies that everyone else would be too fearful to do so because of the consequences.  Simple enough.



> Has enforcement stopped illegal drugs?


 
Because we don't take it seriously.


> Has it stopped prostitution?


 
Because we don't take it seriously.



> Did it stop booze trafficking during prohibition?


 
Because you physically can't control the manufacture of alcohol.



> We dont' want it stopped, hence it will not stop. Continuing to propose a solution that can't happen is not a solution.


 
Contining to propose a solution that isn't an acutal solution isn't a solution either. 



> I propose a cure for that.


 
Like a lot of drugs, your cure is worse then the acutal disease. 




> Not most people who shop at Wal-Mart, and they are more than you or me.


 
I would disagree.  But here we fall into more personal opinion, with no clear factual basis, so I'll leave it alone. 




> But it isn't going to change. So I deal with trying to keep my job using whatever advantages I possess, rather than railing about how unfair it is that my company keeps shipping more and more jobs overseas. I can't change the latter, I might be able to influence the former. Do we want to solve problems, or complain about them?


 
This whole statment is pre-supposed that your solution would actually solve something, which I have shown that it won't. 




> When people say their main concern is securing the border, and then dance around and come with a thousand different non-border-related reasons why they would never agree to an amnesty or a meaningful guest worker program, they have another agenda. When they start throwing their fear of people speaking Spanish or their American culture changing and how it bothers them, I begin to perceive what that agenda is. I doubt they look themselves in the mirror and admit they're racists. But you tell me what you call it when people are not really interested in any solution that does not involve everyone who speaks Spanish and has brown skin going home right now?


 
This is complete obfuscation.  You know that illegals cause a measureable effect on the economy and standard of living.  It is not there mere presence which is unpalatable.  No one is making the argument that they don't want Mexicans here simply because they are Mexican.  When they give you the reason, you call it "dancing".  And when they don't agree with your solution, it must be because of racism.  That is just twisted, I hesitate to call it, logic.  

It is the *net *effect of their presence, which is measureable to some extent, however we just refuse to even try to measure it.   




> Xenophobia is akin to racism. Nobody likes change at first, but the USA is a polyglot society. Most of us have ancestors who came here and were segregated for one reason or another by those already here, or who chose to segregate themselves. We're a society based on change. I live in Detroit, which is hugely diverse. From polish-based Hamtramck to largely Middle-Eastern Dearborn, we run the gamut. Spanish-speaking? Dude, I go grocery shopping next to people wearing chadors or yamulkes and speaking every language I ever heard of.


 
It is not the change people have a problem with.  Most Americans have show a willingness to accept different aspects of various cultures.  But what is wrong with Americans wanting their own culture and sence of identity?  You obviously think that something is wrong with it.  

Hell, we celebrate days that are significant in Mexican history which they don't even celebrate in Mexico!!!  We have Juneteenth, St. Patrick's Day, Hanukkah, Cinco De Mayo, etc.  And yet somehow we're racist.  Give me a break.

What people don't want is this turning into Mexico.  Why?  Because we see what Mexico has to offer.  Hell, that's why they're coming here, because there are significant aspects which even they don't like!




> I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that Hispanic immigrants not be required to follow US laws. Not even aware of any cultural beliefs they have that would chap most of us.


 
And because you don't have those beliefs, everyone who does not see cultural things as you do is a racist.  Please!  That is arrogance of the highest order. 



> Interesting observation.


 
Yeah, you know that whole freedom of association thing that we say we like to have in the U.S. 




> I answer them as I do the others, untrue. They've been debunked more times than I can remember.


 
Your source did not address what I said in any way.  For instance, I said:  
"75% of all outstanding felony warrants in Los Angeles County are for illegal immigrants."

Your source addresses "75% of the people on the Most Wanted List in Los Angeles are illegal aliens."  I said nothing of the sort.  I did not specify murder warrants either, as your source points out. 

I said: About 90% of hit & runs in my department which are solved were caused by illegal immigrants.

1.  Your source does not address this.

2.  Even if it did, I would trust the Traffic Investigator to whom I spoke with and compiles Department statistics before I trusted even Snopes, unless they could prove that he is provided intentional falsehoods.

3.  You are calling into a lie something for which you can have no facts in evidence to support your position.  That goes to show your credibility in other issue as well, in my opinion.

I said:  Roughly 75% of all DUI arrests are committed by illegal immigrants. 

You could be partially right.  I did fail to say "in my Department".  Once again, I would take the word of my Departments traffic investigator over even Snopes.  You could not even possibly refute these stats unless you called and he actually told you different.  Even then, I would posit that the statistics have changed, not that they never existed.

Of course, I have provided no source other then stats given to me by a member of my Department.  You can choose to believe or not believe them.  But considering his fiance is the child of illegal immigrants, I would wonder what his motive would be.




> Yep. If we never let the Italians in, we'd have no Mafia.


 
But we let them in.  We can be blamed.  We didn't "let" the Mexicans illegal immigrants into this country.




> If they're legal and paying taxes, then they are paying into the system they take money from. Like citizens do now.


 
And as I've shown, they wouldn't pay taxes based on your hypothesis and proposal. 




> Competency tests. We can't force citizens to speak English because a) no national law regarding language and b) you can't take away their citizenship for not speaking correctly. With immigrants, you have a stick; no citizenship until they master it to a given degree.


 
But as you have argued above, there would be effectively no difference between a citizen and non-citizen.  So what would the carrot be, since they would have all the rights and privileges of a citizen anyway?  Answer: there wouldn't be, so there would be no incentive for them to learn English.  




> It gives us planning tools, which does allow us to solve problems, and it beats rough guesses, which get blown up 1000% and then repeated in endless hate-filled emails someone insists on posting on various discussion forums. Hehehe.


 
You certainly aren't refering to me, because I have never read said e-mail.   




> Yeah, it's that some (or most?) don't want ANY migrant workers, period.


 
Ok, so what.



> They keep coming up with more and more minute points of law, obscure references to emails that they read, arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and anything they can think of to defend why they're not really racist, but they still don't want illegal aliens to get amnesty or a blanket alien worker program. It's pretty clear what they want, as I've been saying. I know they get all puffed up and angry when called racists, but I can't think of another word for them when they go to such lengths to find ANY reason why they should be kept out / sent packing.


 
So rather then attacking the argument, you chose instead to attack the person.  Good strategy.  Just like the modern liberal.  Call anything you don't like hate-filled so that they can be emotionally discounted.



> I've already addressed it in posts above. Keep up or take notes.


 
You mean the post you made after I said that you didn't address it...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So your proposition is to put the immigrant workers desires first, rather then the employers.  I see where you are going with this.



My desire is to secure the border.



> You mean the mechanics, roofers, construction workers, plumbers, landscapers (not mere lawn cutters), business owners, etc.  Those "unskilled" laborers.



Yep.



> I see that you're from Michigan.  Perhaps you should get out more.  Illegal immigrants do more than pick fruit.



I'm not from Michigan.  I just live here now.  Like I lived in New Mexico for several years, Illinois growing up, Colorado for decades, Nebraska, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and California.

I thought you knew my kind.



> There is a difference between making individual citizens, as meant in the quote above, and letting people come here as suits there convienence for monetary profit.



No there isn't.



> See above.  It's not about denying everyone citizenship.  No one has ever made that point.  But I don't have a problem with having criteria.  Apparently you have none.



Law-abiding and want to live here.  That's good enough.



> And this is my other problem.  What you are now arguing is a essentially a new slave class.  At the very least, you are arguing for a legal caste system.



Is that worse that illegal aliens hiding from the ICE and working in subhuman conditions?  I don't see how.



> Yes, they will be.  From where will they get their health insurance?  From government subsidies.  Hence, they will continue to be a drag on society.  What services will they receive that they could actually pay for, given that you are also making the suggestion of a "non-citizen" low wage.



We'll know how much they cost us and can make adjustments.  The very poor also will be getting free health care, thanks to Obamacare, remember?  Right now, we just can't estimate the price, because we don't know how many of them there are.



> Even if we accept that prices will rise, people will only pay so much for a given product.  Do you really think that people will pay $8 for a head of lettuce, regardless of whether that lettuce is picked by a legal worker or immigrant.  I posit to you that some prices will still be acceptable on an individual basis, but the composite effect would be devastating.  Are you trying to destroy the U.S., or solve the problem.



Then you prefer things to remain as they are.



> Yes, if you believe that the sole problem is merely people coming to this country illegally.  But that is not the sole problem.  It is the underlying root cause of the many other problems which are what really concern people.



The sole problem that concerns me is securing our borders; which is what the people who seem to hate the ideal of legalizing illegal aliens also claim to want - except they don't.



> No one says, "Oh, we just shouldn't have illegal immigrants here just because they are illegal."  The complaint is the effect that those illegal immigrants are having.  And that, you have not solved.



Yes they do.  They say it all the time.  They claim they would love them some Mexicans long time if only they'd stand in line and come in legally.  They only hate them for being illegal, they claim.



> No, you didn't, because you haven't actually given a way for people to pay for those services.  In fact, your suggestion makes the problem worse.  Under your "solution", those who are now illegal and made citizens would have access to services which they don't currently have.  And yet, they would still have no way to pay for them.  Most would not even make enough to be taxed, especially if we implement your "solution" of a "non-citizen low wage".  Hence, they would get *more* services, but still don't pay anything commesurate into the system.



It has been said in this they cost us billions in services.  How do they cost us billions in services they don't have access to?  Either they do or they don't.  Can't have it both ways.



> Your solution also supposes that if they were allowed to get taxable jobs, that somehow that would create those jobs for them to get.  How many gardeners do we need?  Now many fruit pickers do we need?  We're somehow going to magically have more because we have opened the floodgate to even more eligible workers?  I don't think so.



You claim supply and demand takes care of those problems.  So does it or doesn't it?




> I am in law enforcement.  In my experience (what is yours in this, by the way, other then what you heard on the news) illegals have no problems with reporting crime.  We take countless reports from them.



Blah blah blah.  I'm former LE too.  Not impressed.  You can tell that story walking, _"If you're not a cop you don't understand."_ I was and I do.



> And, I'm assuming here, considering that you have little experience with the actual workings of law enforcement, such people now reporting crimes would actually "cause crime to go up".  Alot of crimes go unreported, and not just from illegals.  If the reason they chose not to report them was because of their legal status, and they now reported them, crime statistics would actually rise.



Until the people who prey on illegals get arrested and prosecuted.  Unchecked criminals keep offending. 



> What you're also assuming here is that law enforcement would actually be able to solve those crimes.  In most crimes, there is very little suspect information, and what is given are vague physically descriptions given by victims.  And can be accounted for by experts in the field, most descriptions given usually have inaccuracies.  So, just because those crimes are reported doesn't mean that crimes would be solved and go down.



More _"I'm a cop and you just don't get it"_ crap.  Get over yourself.  I've done my time.



> But what I suggest would not cost all that much to have a significant impact, nor would it require gobs of law enforcement.  All you have to do is make it so painful for some high profile people in companies that everyone else would be too fearful to do so because of the consequences.  Simple enough.



Except no one in power wants to have it done, the companies don't want to have it done to them, and the citizens want cheap lettuce.  So it won't happen.  How simple it is is quite beside the point.  Won't happen, quit wishing for it.



> Because we don't take it seriously.



Bingo. And this too.  You want to secure the borders or not?  Apparently not.



> Because you physically can't control the manufacture of alcohol.



Because you can't control the borders.  It ain't the booze, it's where it comes in.  Same for drugs, human trafficking, and illegal migrant workers.



> Contining to propose a solution that isn't an acutal solution isn't a solution either.



It is a solution to securing our borders.  That's all I care about.



> Like a lot of drugs, your cure is worse then the acutal disease.



The alternative is nothing changes.  Some cure.



> So rather then attacking the argument, you chose instead to attack the person.  Good strategy.  Just like the modern liberal.  Call anything you don't like hate-filled so that they can be emotionally discounted.



Except I'm a conservative.  Go figure.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've been thinking about that statement your co-worker said all day. I think it's a racist statement.
> 
> If he meant that he preferred the company of conservatives to that of liberals, he could have said that. But he had to put 'black' and 'white' in it. What it appears he is saying is _"I prefer the company of white people, but if they are liberal, then I'd prefer the company of black people who are conservative instead."_
> 
> ...


 
See, here I was thinking that you understood that we were talking about race, racism, and culture in the context of freedom of association, and would understand that the comment was made in that context.  Seems others get it.  But I'll assume that the problem was my doing so I'll make it clear.

He made the comment in the context of race, racism, and culture in the context of freedom of association.  Basically, his comment was about the fact that he doesn't care what race a person is, it is the culture that they embrace which matters to him.  

Always looking towards the negative I see.  Guess you really didn't give it as much thought as you would have us believe.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My desire is to secure the border.


 
Which only effective inso far as it goes, which is no where.  I no way would it mitigate the effects that illegal immigration causes.  Things in this country would remain the same.  That is what you don't care about apparently. 



> Yep.


 
Sorry, but none of those is unskilled labor. 




> I'm not from Michigan. I just live here now. Like I lived in New Mexico for several years, Illinois growing up, Colorado for decades, Nebraska, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and California.
> 
> I thought you knew my kind.


 
Liberals, absolutely.  Call yourself what you want, but if it looks, talks, and acts like one...... 




> No there isn't.


 
Yeah, there is.  It's a psychological difference which you seem to refuse to realize.  Which then has its own effects.  So be it. 




> Law-abiding and want to live here. That's good enough.


 
For you, but not for me.  But I guess that makes me a racist then, huh?



> Is that worse that illegal aliens hiding from the ICE and working in subhuman conditions? I don't see how.


 
Because once again you ignore the psychological. 




> We'll know how much they cost us and can make adjustments. The very poor also will be getting free health care, thanks to Obamacare, remember? Right now, we just can't estimate the price, because we don't know how many of them there are.


 
Which is to say that they will cost us more, not less as you made in your argument.  Thank you for, once again, proving my point.   




> Then you prefer things to remain as they are.


 
Is this about my preferences, or what I think will actually happen.  I have stated my preference.  Don't try to hide behind the fact that our politicians don't have the nuts to do the right thing as to somehow mean that that is my preference.

Either way, unlike you, I will not agree to just "do something", just so I can say that I'm doing something, even though it will not in fact solve the problem.  That is a liberal trait.  

Hmmm... something about a duck comes to mind once again. 




> The sole problem that concerns me is securing our borders; which is what the people who seem to hate the ideal of legalizing illegal aliens also claim to want - except they don't.


 
Yes, they do.  But they don't agree that your solution is the goal to solving the myriad of other issues which come along with both it, and illegal immigration.  And they are exactly the same. 



> Yes they do. They say it all the time. They claim they would love them some Mexicans long time if only they'd stand in line and come in legally. They only hate them for being illegal, they claim.


 
Yes, because, in their being illegal, come a host of problems which you acknowledge in theory, but when they are addressed in the context of your supposed solution, refuse to argue.   

Besides, as I have shown, which you even haven't tried to refute, your solution wouldn't actually even secure the border because there would continue to be a huge market for illegal immigrant workers.  

No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.



> It has been said in this they cost us billions in services. How do they cost us billions in services they don't have access to? Either they do or they don't. Can't have it both ways.


 
Because there are billions in services that they do have access to.  Medical care, schooling, police services, fire services, court services, traffic services, use of public highways.  And the list goes on and on.

Oh, but I guess you only want to talk about the services that they explicitly can't get, like welfare, while ignoring all of the other services they do get.  I guess that's cuz it doesn't suit your argument.



> You claim supply and demand takes care of those problems. So does it or doesn't it?


 
What?  Supply and demand have nothing to do with what I said here.  Somehow you think that having millions of additional workers here will magically create jobs here.  

Or is it that demanding jobs somehow causes them to appear.  Oh, I get it now... poof.... 



> Blah blah blah. I'm former LE too. Not impressed. You can tell that story walking, _"If you're not a cop you don't understand."_ I was and I do.


 
Don't need you to be impressed.  In fact, if you were I would begin to doubt the merits of my own argument.  Besides, I did say I was assuming, didn't I, leading to the admission that I could be wrong on that point.

But you still didn't address the point, did you.  Typical.



> Until the people who prey on illegals get arrested and prosecuted. Unchecked criminals keep offending.


 
Yeah.  Except, and I'm surprised what with your vast law enforcement experience, that just because one makes a report doesn't mean that a crime is solved or a person arrested.  We dispo a lot more cases as unsolved then solved.  

But then again, you know that.  Just still ignoring the argument.



> More _"I'm a cop and you just don't get it"_ crap. Get over yourself. I've done my time.


 
Still ignoring the argument. 



> Except no one in power wants to have it done, the companies don't want to have it done to them, and the citizens want cheap lettuce. So it won't happen. How simple it is is quite beside the point. Won't happen, quit wishing for it.


 
Yes, and lets spend millions of dollars, if not billions, revamping the system into something that pretends to work, but actually doesn't.  How so much better, huh? 




> Bingo. And this too. You want to secure the borders or not? Apparently not.


 
Bingo.  Because you haven't provided a serious solution.  Once again, it is only if we do what you want will you consider it serious.  

Wasn't there a book written about liberals once called "The Vision of the Anointed."  Hmmmm.....



> Because you can't control the borders. It ain't the booze, it's where it comes in. Same for drugs, human trafficking, and illegal migrant workers.


 
Hmmm.  Berlin did it, the Soviet Union did it, Mexico does a fair job of doing it.  But noooo, it can't be done.  If you say so, of course. 



> It is a solution to securing our borders. That's all I care about.


 
Nope, sorry it doesn't.   Shown it, you have done nothing to refute it.




> The alternative is nothing changes. Some cure.


 
Much better than faking it.




> Except I'm a conservative. Go figure.


 
:roflmao:

Unless I can't control my ability to bang my head into a brick wall, I think I'm going to bow out of this thread.  You aren't making logical arguments, refuse to explain the contradictions in your own position, and are quick to negatively judge everything  you hear.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 13, 2010)

Let me break a few things down

Mexican health care is terrible, as broken as our health care system is, immigrants have a much higher chance of living healthy lives in America.

Illegal Immigrants do not qualify for most benefits. Without a social security number thay cannot recieve  SSI, Medicaid, or medicare. The monetary drain they place on society in some occasions is due to not having any ability to pay for health care. Health care reform is tied to immigration reform.

Amnesty for immigrants without felony charges would benefit everyone. The immigrants could demand more from employers if granted legal status, they could access services to assit them in improving quality of life. As I said earlier, not everyone should get amnesty, but a good lot of them should.

Our nation was founded on the idea that all men are created equal and have the right to seek happiness in their lives. To deny someone that simply because of lack of documentation is hypocritical of our nations precieved values.

Illegal immigrants tend to take jobs that either no one wants, or pays illegally such as under the table, or below required minimum wages, or with lack of benefits. The issue caused here is not the immigrants fault who tend to only want to support their families; it is the fault of the employers who are unfair to them. If the employers were forced to pay them the same (and immigrants would then not be afraid to contact services and put those employers in the hot seat for their behavior)

I understand where the other side is coming from, but basic human rights shouldn't be ignored. People deserve to be healthy, they deserve to feed their families, they deserve respect and should be treated with dignity not like some kind of rodent infestation.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 13, 2010)

How about we bring back the mandatory draft. Anyone that we find in this country (adults that is) must serve in our military for a 4 year period or be sent back where they came from or imprisoned. If they serve for four years then they will be given the chance to become citizens and allowed to stay.


----------



## dancingalone (May 13, 2010)

tshadowchaser said:


> How about we bring back the mandatory draft. Anyone that we find in this country (adults that is) must serve in our military for a 4 year period or be sent back where they came from or imprisoned. If they serve for four years then they will be given the chance to become citizens and allowed to stay.



Wouldn't work if only because of the legions of kids (citizens or not) that would be left without parents.

I like the idea in spirit however.


----------



## elder999 (May 13, 2010)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Let me break a few things down
> 
> Mexican health care is terrible, as broken as our health care system is, immigrants have a much higher chance of living healthy lives in America.


 
Ya kinda broke that one-Mexican health care is pretty good, actually. WHile there's a graded system for coverage, and a vast gulf between what the rich can do vs. the poor, their costs are lower than ours, and the quality of care is quite high-lots of people in border states like this one go to Mexico for dentistry (about 20-25% of U.S. costs), surgery  and plastic surgery. Medications are cheaper there as well. And, with so many U.S. doctors going to medical school in foreign countries like Mexico, and so many Mexican doctors getting at least part of their training in the U.S., the level of expertise is also equitable with the U.S. Mexico also has many excellent hospitals.


----------



## Satt (May 13, 2010)

Himura Kenshin said:


> People *deserve* to be healthy, they *deserve* to feed their families, they *deserve* respect and should be treated with dignity not like some kind of rodent infestation.


 
I agree with the last part in red. However, I don't agree with the word "deserve". The ONLY thing we are guaranteed when we are born is that we will die.


----------



## Archangel M (May 13, 2010)

One thing I do know is that Mexico is pretty much a war zone. If these people are trying to flee the violence we should be granting them refugee status. Some Mexican police chiefs have to lead their officers via CCTV from secure locations because the drug cartels kill them so often.

(WARNING: Violent and disturbing.)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e99_1234563883

The Mexican Cartels even advertise for recruits.

http://www.securitycornermexico.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=685&Itemid=1009

And get them because the government, the military and their police departments are so corrupt.

And it's leaking over into OUR country. There have been entire Texan PD's shut down by the feds for trafficking. And rumors that even US District Attorneys are on the take along the border. We need to treat that border like we were adjacent to Afghanistan. It's THAT bad.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 14, 2010)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Let me break a few things down
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants do not qualify for most benefits. Without a social security number thay cannot recieve SSI, Medicaid, or medicare. The monetary drain they place on society in some occasions is due to not having any ability to pay for health care. Health care reform is tied to immigration reform.


 
Why is it that people insist that medical care is is the only service that illegal immigrants get that they don't pay for?  Such is not the case, as I have tried to show.  They get all of the services that most Americans take for granted, such as police, fire, EMS, roads, etc.  

And health care reform is not tied to immigration reform.  Even if you listen to Obama, illegal immigrants will not be eligible for benefits under his health insurance plan.  



> Amnesty for immigrants without felony charges would benefit everyone. The immigrants could demand more from employers if granted legal status, they could access services to assit them in improving quality of life. As I said earlier, not everyone should get amnesty, but a good lot of them should.


 
How does helping them help me?  So, by giving them more services that they will be unable to pay for, somehow that is supposed to help me.  How is that?  How does them demanding more from their employers help the average U.S. citizen.



> Our nation was founded on the idea that all men are created equal and have the right to seek happiness in their lives. To deny someone that simply because of lack of documentation is hypocritical of our nations precieved values.


 
Even as you say "all men ... have the right to seek happiness in their lives."  The operative word is "seek".  That does not mean guaranteed, or that any group of individuals, or government, is mandated to give it to them.  To take what our country was founded on, all men were expected to work for what they wanted, and that includes jumping through legal hurdles, such as applying for citizenship.



> Illegal immigrants tend to take jobs that either no one wants


 
You mean like mechanics, landscapers, construction workers, carpenters, plumbers.  Those jobs that no one wants.  That's just not true at all.



> or pays illegally such as under the table, or below required minimum wages, or with lack of benefits.


 
Now that is the kicker.  Americans won't do jobs for less then fair market value.  When the deck is stacked against them, in the form of required minimum wages that illegals do not have to be paid, then it isn't fair.



> The issue caused here is not the immigrants fault who tend to only want to support their families; it is the fault of the employers who are unfair to them.


 
Wow, really?  How are employers unfair to them? Employers are aren't even supposed to be hiring them.  These illegal immigrants who have jobs shouldn't.  Quite frankly, they are both taking advantage of each other.  



> If the employers were forced to pay them the same (and immigrants would then not be afraid to contact services and put those employers in the hot seat for their behavior)


 
If they were forced to pay them the same, why hire them?  They would have to then compete on an even keel with those whose skill, education, and experience probably exceed theirs.  



> I understand where the other side is coming from,


 
No, I don't actually think that you do.



> but basic human rights shouldn't be ignored.


 
And what human rights are being ignored?  They have jobs that they otherwise wouldn't have, not even in their own country.  They recieve benefits in excess of what they pay for.  Their standard of living is higher then they would have in their own country.

I'm sorry.  How are we ignoring their human rights again?

[/QUOTE]People deserve to be healthy[/quote]

No, they don't, the deserve the *opportunity* to be healthy, which is different.



> , they deserve to feed their families


 
Once again, no they don't.  They deserve the *opportunity* to feed their families.

[/quote]
 they deserve respect and should be treated with dignity not like some kind of rodent infestation.[/quote]

Respect is not given freely.  It is earned.  And when they violate the laws of our nation, I am reluctant to do so.  When they abandon their country to the despotism and violence which is occuring, and do nothing, even if from afar, to change it, no they do not.  When they come here and take, but give little if anything in return, no they do not deserve respect.  

Let me come into your house, tell you that I deserve to be there, demand that you pay me, tell you to provide me with health care and protection and see if you respect me then.  Will you give me everything that I am demanding?  If so, what is your address?


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 14, 2010)

It's a fallacy that prices would "shoot up" if Americans were hired.  The prices should go up very little, and here's why:

Labor costs are only _part _of the cost of a product, I've heard some quotes of 15-20%.  Suppose a head of lettuce costs, let's say $1.00.  And let's say the cost of labor increases 40%.  .20 x .40 = .08  (8%). 

Would you pay 8 cents more for a head of lettuce if you knew you were helping one of your fellow Americans keep a decent job and feed his/her family, and decreasing illegal immigration?  Would you pay 10 or 15 cents more?  What's it worth to you?

Now if the prices "shot up," that would mean the producer, manufacturer or vendor was a pig, and was increasing his/her own _profit_.  That's the kind of thing we see happen when a barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil goes up a couple of bucks, and you _immediately_ see prices go up 30 cents per gallon at the gas pump.  It's called gouging.


----------



## dancingalone (May 14, 2010)

There's also price and demand elasticity.  I know I won't pay much more than a buck for lettuce.  If it jumps to $1.50 a head, I'll probably buy some other leafy green since lettuce is virtually without nutritional merit anyway.  If enough others are like me, the lettuce producers must adjust their pricing anyway even if they don't have the benefit of lowly paid illegal workers. 

Or the lawn mowing business.  You used to be able to get a neighborhood kid to do it for you for about $40 front and back in my area.  Those kids have largely been replaced by small businesses who use illegal workers charging around the same price.  If we suddenly lost the illegal workers, I bet you'd see more kids mowing lawns for pocket money again.

We can't always assume the loss of illegal workers must mean a corresponding raise in prices.  Their use in the American economy don't always reflect a savings to consumers...many times I am sure, the savings goes straight to the wallet of the business owners.


----------



## Joab (May 17, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> There's also price and demand elasticity. I know I won't pay much more than a buck for lettuce. If it jumps to $1.50 a head, I'll probably buy some other leafy green since lettuce is virtually without nutritional merit anyway. If enough others are like me, the lettuce producers must adjust their pricing anyway even if they don't have the benefit of lowly paid illegal workers.
> 
> Or the lawn mowing business. You used to be able to get a neighborhood kid to do it for you for about $40 front and back in my area. Those kids have largely been replaced by small businesses who use illegal workers charging around the same price. If we suddenly lost the illegal workers, I bet you'd see more kids mowing lawns for pocket money again.
> 
> We can't always assume the loss of illegal workers must mean a corresponding raise in prices. Their use in the American economy don't always reflect a savings to consumers...many times I am sure, the savings goes straight to the wallet of the business owners.


 
The key to me is they are "illegal aliens". They arn't supposed to be here. By and large the INS really does know where they are and really could round them up and send them back to Mexico if the logisitcs could be worked out to transport that huge number of people that distance. A better way is to fine the companies that hire them enough that it isn't economically feasible for them to hire illegal aliens. If there were no jobs in the USA for the illegal aliens they wouldn't come here in the first place, and those that are here would go somewhere else, hopefully their home country.

By helping develop Mexico and help grow the economy and the number of jobs would help equally well. If there were enough jobs in Mexico paying a living wage they wouldn't feel the need to come to the USA for work. Difficult to do I acknowledge, but I really do believe this two pronged approach is a way that would really work. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen, the reason it won't likely happen is because it would likely work and there are lots of people who want to keep things the way they are for the cheap source of labor.


----------

