# Immigration explained



## jetboatdeath (Feb 8, 2007)

Let's say I break into your house

A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!!
It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV. 

Her point:

   Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. 

  Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. 

   Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. 
    Let's say I break into your house. 
    Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. 
But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. 
I've done all the things you don't like to do. 
I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house). 
According to the protesters: 
You are Required to let me stay in your house 
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan 
You are Required to Educate my kids 
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family 
(my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part). 

   If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. 

   It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. 
   I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house. 

                And what a deal it is for me!!! 
    I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. 
Oh yeah, 
    I DEMAND that you to learn MY LANGUAGE!!! 
so you can communicate with me. 

   Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America .....if  you agree, pass it on (in English). Share it if you see the value of  it. 

If not blow it off......... along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 8, 2007)

an interesting expression of that point of view, but there's a wide gap between what's appropriate at the personal level vs. what's appropriate at the societal level.

i realize that there are exceptions, but from what i can tell the majority of those who oppose immigration also support the war.....

"hey bubba, that funny guy across the street -- i hear he might have a gun"
"well, shoot, coy, we can't let him have a gun.  he might hurt folks."
bubba and coy kick in his front door, kill a bunch of people in the house and lynch the guy in the back yard.
and they never do find a gun.


to be clear, i'm not anti-war as a rule.  it's just that your metaphor doesn't scale.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> it's just that your metaphor doesn't scale.



I dunno... puts it on a personal level that makes sense to me... Is it exactly the same... no, but is it _that_ different?  No...


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 9, 2007)

i really think there's a dividing line.  

there are actions (war, execution) that are moral at the societal level that are inexcusable at the personal level.  conversely, there are actions at the personal level (indulging in self destructive habits, fore example) that would not be acceptable as public policy.


leastaways that's my way of thinking.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

The apparently immobile position assumed by the Republican Congress on immigration has been interesting for me to watch. In the spirit of full disclosure, I do not think there should be any such thing as "illegal immigration". I believe anyone who wants to come to American to live or work, should cross the border freely, walk into a Social Security Office and get a legal document that allows them to work, earn money and participate in the system. 

It was interesting to hear reference to this article recently.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/4973_72.htm

The hardline anti-immigration stance is leading to increased activity among existing Ku Klux Klan chapters, and spawning new chapters across America.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/06/klan.report.ap/



When one sees a note that ends with ... 



			
				jetboatdeath said:
			
		

> Only in America .....if you agree, pass it on (in English). Share it if you see the value of it.


 
... it is not difficult to read this letter as an invitation to join their organizaiton.


----------



## Ray (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I believe anyone who wants to come to American to live or work, should cross the border freely...


What if all 6 billiion wanted to move into your apartment complex?

I think that the oft quoted reason for alien workers ("they are doing jobs that most americans won't") is a cop out.  If the jobs need to be done, then the employer will have to pay a wage that will attract [some] American workers to the jobs.  If, whatever the service or product, becomes more costly in the market place due to the higher labor component costs then the consumers will have to decide if they want to pay the price or not.  Either the market will support the wages or the product/service will no longer be available.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Ray said:


> What if all 6 billiion wanted to move into your apartment complex?


 
My landlord would be very happy. Supply and Demand .. don't you know. 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I think that the oft quoted reason for alien workers ("they are doing jobs that most americans won't") is a cop out. If the jobs need to be done, then the employer will have to pay a wage that will attract [some] American workers to the jobs. If, whatever the service or product, becomes more costly in the market place due to the higher labor component costs then the consumers will have to decide if they want to pay the price or not. Either the market will support the wages or the product/service will no longer be available.


 
On one hand you argue the free market (wages), while simultaneously with the other hand you are arguing protectionism (workers)? 

That seems confusing. 

But, again, in the interest of full disclosure, I think the barriers should be the other way around. Tarrifs should be applied to goods coming into the country. That places the burden on those who will consume the finished goods. (All profits enter the supply chain only with the final purchaser.)

By applying tarrifs to the labor pool that adds value to raw materials, it seems to me that we are asking workers to run a 100 yard dash with ankleweights, artificially slowing down productivity. This is a very bad analogy on my part ... I wish I had a more elegant analogy, but I do believe the common discussions have it exactly backward.


----------



## The Kidd (Feb 9, 2007)

I liked the article and it explained the issue very well. You cannot have situational ethics "Its ok to break the law if the reason is good enough" if that is the case then why can't we rob banks because we are poor or just kill people because they are bad. There is a process to get into this country, does it need to be streamlined, yes. Lets work on that end instead of rewarding others for breaking laws.


----------



## bydand (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The apparently immobile position assumed by the Republican Congress on immigration has been interesting for me to watch. In the spirit of full disclosure, I do not think there should be any such thing as "illegal immigration". I believe anyone who wants to come to American to live or work, should cross the border freely, walk into a Social Security Office and get a legal document that allows them to work, earn money and participate in the system.



Have to disagree with you (yeah I know, real news there right?  )  I don't see this stated as a "immobile position assumed bit the Republican Congress"  but rather an amusing story from a slightly different perspective.  My oldest friend (not age wise, but time wise) is 100% Hispanic.  Both sides of his family still live within a few miles of the US/Mexico border (in both counties, Mom's family is in the US, and Papa's family is still in Mexico.)  Yes, I do call them Mom and Papa even though I am 43 years old now as a side note.  The whole family is as Democratic as I have ever seen and it has led to some spirited disscussions during cook-outs, and other family get togethers (they are as much my "family" as my own flesh and blood family.)  The *one* area we all agree 100% on is immigration.  They have gone through the process themselves before I was born, and the family members who have come across have done so through the proper channels.  They cannot stand their own countrymen who short circuit the process by illegally entering and working in their new Country.  As they have told me over and over, it is a black mark against the Hispanic culture and distorts others views of them personally.  All of their Children *who were born legally here* have been asked for green cards or it has been implied that there were way to work without one if they didn't have them when applying for a job.  That is the reality of allowing illegal immigration to happen with the whole open door policy; give them a green card, welfare, and everything else, but take away the hard work and respect that those who followed the law at the same time.




> It was interesting to hear reference to this article recently.
> 
> http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/4973_72.htm
> 
> ...



Honestly haven't had time to read these yet, so I'll not comment and make a fool of myself.




> When one sees a note that ends with ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is a giant jump.  Come on now, 99.99% of the people who read this are not going to even make a connection like this.  How can the message "Don't come into my Country illegally" be construed to mean "Damn it here is another foreigner, time to join the Klan!"


----------



## Ray (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> On one hand you argue the free market (wages), while simultaneously with the other hand you are arguing protectionism (workers)?


I'm not arguing protectionism.  I'm arguing the enforcement of the law.

However, the goods and services produced with the higher wage will not be competitive on the world market.  This would force the American producer to find a way to become less expensive, either through more automation or other means.  


michaeledward said:


> Tarrifs should be applied to goods coming into the country. That places the burden on those who will consume the finished goods. (All profits enter the supply chain only with the final purchaser.)
> 
> By applying tarrifs to the labor pool that adds value to raw materials, it seems to me that we are asking workers to run a 100 yard dash with ankleweights, artificially slowing down productivity. This is a very bad analogy on my part ... I wish I had a more elegant analogy, but I do believe the common discussions have it exactly backward.


I believe that tarrifs discourage free trade and artificially skew the market place.  There should be no tarriffs (with the possible exception of those who are found to be breaking the trading laws [dumping for example]).


----------



## bydand (Feb 9, 2007)

Just had a chance to read those articles you posted Michaeledward and that is disturbing news.  I was hoping those groups were on the way of the dinosaures, but they seem to keep raising their ugly heads like the cancer they are to socitiey.  It figures they would use this issue to distort it to fit their agenda and gain new members, it just sickens me to hear that people are sheep enough to fall for it. :barf:


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

It's nice to see the title of this thread corrected.  Whilst I normally pass on poor spelling, I did find it ironic that a post decrying people from other countries began with a gross misspelling in our native language. 

Thank you to whomever corrected this.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Ray said:


> I'm not arguing protectionism. I'm arguing the enforcement of the law.
> 
> However, the goods and services produced with the higher wage will not be competitive on the world market. This would force the American producer to find a way to become less expensive, either through more automation or other means.
> I believe that tarrifs discourage free trade and artificially skew the market place. There should be no tarriffs (with the possible exception of those who are found to be breaking the trading laws [dumping for example]).


 
I am not arguing non-enforcement of the law. 

The function of a law that restricts free flow of people over borders is exactly the same as the function of a law that restricts the free flow of capital or goods over borders. 

While there may be other functions in immigration law, you can not deny that one effect of the application of the law is a tarriff on labor. 



			
				bydand said:
			
		

> Have to disagree with you


 
I don't know with what you are disagreeing? 

I understand that completely open borders would qualify as a radical idea. So, I don't expect may to agree. But, it worked well for the first 175 years of our country. 

You don't think the Republican Congressional position is hardlined, and immobile? 

Just wondering what you are disagreeing with?


----------



## Ray (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> While there may be other functions in immigration law, you can not deny that one effect of the application of the law is a tarriff on labor.


Of course I can deny it.  A tarriff is a duty or tax imposed by one of the two countries involved in the transaction.  For example: If country A wants to ship aluminum to country B, then country B may impose a tarriff which country A must pay.  Yes, it raises the price to the consumer because someone has to pay the price (if a price demanded, and it doesn't always have to be).

Letting someone from country A into country B illegally to make aluminum in an unsafe sweatshop where the workers are possibly paid under the table for wages less than the law of country B allows is completely different than a tarriff.


michaeledward said:


> I understand that completely open borders would qualify as a radical idea. So, I don't expect may to agree. But, it worked well for the first 175 years of our country.


Open borders worked well for the aboriginal Americans and for the aboriginal Austrailians; and the aboriginal South Africans....

Do you suppose it will work as well for you and me?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 9, 2007)

jetboatdeath said:


> Let's say I break into your house
> 
> A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!!
> It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.
> ...


 
Nice analogy

And before a war breaks out over what I mean by analogy

A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.    



bushidomartialarts said:


> i realize that there are exceptions, but from what i can tell the majority of those who oppose immigration also support the war.....



Not sure how this connects with the post but since it was posted.

There is a difference between immigration and illegal immigration. Now are you saying if someone does not want any people from other countries in the USA they support the war or people who do not want people to come into and live in the USA illegally support the war?

I have no problem with immigration; I have a big problem with illegally entering and staying in the USA.

As for letting in all comers, thats fine as long as the next time something gets blown up I don't here "We were lied to" or "how could they let this happen to us" again.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Ray said:


> Of course I can deny it. A tarriff is a duty or tax imposed by one of the two countries involved in the transaction. For example: If country A wants to ship aluminum to country B, then country B may impose a tarriff which country A must pay. Yes, it raises the price to the consumer because someone has to pay the price (if a price demanded, and it doesn't always have to be).
> 
> Letting someone from country A into country B illegally to make aluminum in an unsafe sweatshop where the workers are possibly paid under the table for wages less than the law of country B allows is completely different than a tarriff.


 
Ray, Your mixing many arguments now. 

If there are no border restrictions, how can person from country B be illegally making a product in country A? 

If it is legal to make the product, and the worker is not here illegally,  won't the labor laws in place prevent 'unsafe sweatshop' environments. 

If the workers are not here illegally, wouldn't they be offered the protection of wage laws within the existing market? 


I continue to propose that an effect of immigration law is a tarrif on labor.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Open borders worked well for the aboriginal Americans and for the aboriginal Austrailians; and the aboriginal South Africans....
> 
> Do you suppose it will work as well for you and me?


You are correct. The Europeans destroyed the indiginous residents of the Western Hemisphere. Our species is often short-sited when searching for wealth. Are you arguing that immigration restrictions in the United States are preventing similar decimations?


----------



## crushing (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It's nice to see the title of this thread corrected. Whilst I normally pass on poor spelling, I did find it ironic that a post decrying people from other countries began with a gross misspelling in our native language.
> 
> Thank you to whomever corrected this.


 
I would pass on that too as it may not be the case that we share a native language.  I'm not sure how that is ironic.

As for 'decrying people from other countries'; while I may not agree with or even like the analogy, I took the post to distinguish those involved in breaking the law from those that do not.  The media also have difficulty with the differences and often refer to illegal aliens as immigrants.  Perhaps it is purposefully done, like removing the -ic from Democratic Party, or attempting to link those opposed to illegal immigration with the KKK?  Memes can be powerful.


----------



## Ray (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray, Your mixing many arguments now.
> 
> If there are no border restrictions, how can person from country B be illegally making a product in country A?
> 
> ...


In my mind, I conceived country A as a country where Aluminum was produced less expensively than in country B.  Part of the reduced cost was the cost of employee wages.  I put country B in the category of a place where wages were higher and poor people from country A would illegally enter country B.

As you may be aware, people from other countries illegally enter the US because they can make more money in the US.  You may also be aware that the people are often treated badly, given to working in unsafe conditions and benefitting from few of the laws of the US that are supposed to protect US workers.  That's the anology.  

I'm mixing no arguements.  


michaeledward said:


> You are correct. The Europeans destroyed the indiginous residents of the Western Hemisphere. Our species is often short-sited when searching for wealth. Are you arguing that immigration restrictions in the United States are preventing similar decimations?


Our species isn't short-sighted. It's selfish and inconsiderate of others.  We look for out for number one first, as a rule (not withstanding the good and kind people who would act with altruism).

We are no where near ready for open and free borders.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 9, 2007)

The Kidd said:


> I liked the article and it explained the issue very well. You cannot have situational ethics "Its ok to break the law if the reason is good enough" if that is the case then why can't we rob banks because we are poor or just kill people because they are bad. There is a process to get into this country, does it need to be streamlined, yes. Lets work on that end instead of rewarding others for breaking laws.



on the other hand, the gap between what's legal and what's ethical wouldn't fit comfortably in the grand canyon.

it seems to me that much of the current trouble stems from the fact that the law, as it currently stands, serves nobody well.  there's a legitimate economic and social need for a different system.  when that happens, breaking the law (sometimes called civil disobedience) become a _responsibility_.

situational ethics would be not doing what's right because, in the current situation, what's right would be against the law.


----------



## bydand (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I don't know with what you are disagreeing?
> 
> I understand that completely open borders would qualify as a radical idea. So, I don't expect may to agree. But, it worked well for the first 175 years of our country.
> 
> ...



Sorry about not being clearer.  The parts below are what I was disagreeing with.




michaeledward said:


> In the spirit of full disclosure, I do not think there should be any such thing as "illegal immigration". I believe anyone who wants to come to American to live or work, should cross the border freely, walk into a Social Security Office and get a legal document that allows them to work, earn money and participate in the system.
> 
> ... it is not difficult to read this letter as an invitation to join their organizaiton.



First point because there has to be a screening process of some sort, or we will end up with every criminal and low-life other Countries don't want.  It would be a lot cheeper to buy a passage to the US than imprision them.  

The second point because it IS  difficult to read an invitation to join the KKK in that letter.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

bydand said:


> First point because there has to be a screening process of some sort, or we will end up with every criminal and low-life other Countries don't want. It would be a lot cheeper to buy a passage to the US than imprision them.


 


I do not believe there needs to be a screening process. Let them come. Each and every one. Come one, Come All! Welcome.Give me your tired, your poor,​your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free​The wretched refuse or your teeming shore​Send these, the homeless, the temptest tost to me​I lift my lamp by the golden door.​​


			
				Bydand said:
			
		

> The second point because it IS difficult to read an invitation to join the KKK in that letter.


 
Have you ever wondered how gay people, making up by some estimates less than 7% of the population, find each other? Do you suppose they have a secret handshake, or something? 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

On a different note .. 



> Nice try! Link those that you don't agree with to the KKK. That's low. Even for a devout partisan.


This is an interesting comment that came my way. The unnamed commentor is saying that I have linked the original poster to the Ku Klux Klan. This is an interesting thought. Let's examine it, shall we.

I believe after reading the initial post, I was offended. It seemed a simplistic argument against a complex reality. Having recently been made aware of the reports by the Anti-Defamation League, I thought there was a connection. Primarily because the ADL suggests that a rise in activity among the Ku Klux Klan is being driven by illegal immigration. 

I connected to the ADL web-site and the an Associated Press article reporting on the Anti-Defamation Leagues research. And then I closed my post with this ... 


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> When one sees a note that ends with ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is not impossible to say that I am accusing jetboatdeath of attempting to recuit for the KKK. Althought that is far from what I believe I am doing, and far from what I meant. 

I do not believe for a moment that the original post in this thread is the intellectual property of jetboatdeath. Most likely, it is spam that comes from an email ... quite possibly the original source will never be identified. 

However, jetboatdeath did not print this work attributed to someone else's intellect. He posted it as if it was his own. So, when I quoted the text, I included him as its source. I could have quoted the language from the letter without sourcing it to jetboatdeath, but that too, would be a mischaracterization. After all, I am not certain that this work is not his intellectual property. He did post without any other sourcing. 

But, the actual request to 'pass it on' also requires some attention, I think. This is saying 'if you think like I do, spread the message', reinforce our beliefs. Let us find people like ourselves so that we might unite to make our message louder. 

That citizens can peaceably assemble is one of the protections afforded us in the First Amendment to the Constitution. I cherish that right. And I recognize that right. To see this 'pass it on', as a signpost for like minded people to peaceably assemble is not a difficult reach. 

Now, connect that with the articles by the Anti-Defamation League. The Ku Klux Klan is searching for like minded people, and finding them in the illegal immigration debate. In its history, the most explosive period of the KKK's history was during the German and Irish immigration periods in the early 20th century. Immigration has been shown to be a powerful recruiting tool for the organization. It was then, why not now?

So, it may very well be that jetboatdeath has no idea what the Ku Klux Klan is, nor did he intend to invite people to the organization. Well, I saw this language as a code that like minded people would identify with and be drawn to, and if that doesnt qualify as an invitation, I dont know what does. 

I can hear the clarion call of white supremecy in the original post ... jetboatdeath may not be aware that he is issuing that sound by 'passing it on' ... but maybe it is there ... or as some here think, I'm just attacking America because I hate President Bush.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Ray said:


> In my mind, I conceived country A as a country where Aluminum was produced less expensively than in country B. Part of the reduced cost was the cost of employee wages. I put country B in the category of a place where wages were higher and poor people from country A would illegally enter country B.


 
Ray, what if Country B said, "Hey everybody, come in. There are no laws preventing you from coming." 

Is worker from Country A then illegal? 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> We are no where near ready for open and free borders.


 
Why not? Our country existed that way for many, many years.


----------



## bydand (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I do not believe there needs to be a screening process. Let them come. Each and every one. Come one, Come All! Welcome.Give me your tired, your poor,​your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free​The wretched refuse or your teeming shore​Send these, the homeless, the temptest tost to me​I lift my lamp by the golden door.​Have you ever wondered how gay people, making up by some estimates less than 7% of the population, find each other? Do you suppose they have a secret handshake, or something?



Actually it doesn't say anywhere there about taking the criminals and low-lifes.  And even a semi-reasonable person cannot make the jump from wretched refuse to criminal minded.  No sreening process at all?  Good luck with that!  

As for the secret handshake, can't speak for the homosexual community, but when it comes to the KKK... not a handshake, a hand position shall we say.  Don't ask, I didn't run with the best of people in my stupid younger days - NO I never agreed with the tenets of the KKK, but several of my "friends" and relatives did, and had the hoods to prove it.   I personally find the whole idealology of the Klan to be sickening and repulsive,  My best friend from kindergarten to this day (39 years) is Hispanic, I cannot even begin to believe someone may think less of him or his family due to their ethnic background.





> This is an interesting comment that came my way. The unnamed commentor is saying that I have linked the original poster to the Ku Klux Klan. This is an interesting thought. Let's examine it, shall we.



That thought never crossed my mind personally.  I may disagree with your personal views most of the time, but never have seen a post where you don't just say what you mean, and think.  That is one of the reasons I like reading your posts (even though the majority of them piss me off  ).  You tend to make me think about my stand on an issue, and for that, no matter how blooming mad some of them make me, I like reading your responses.  I don't think I'll find much we will agree on, but at least you don't pull your punches and lay out your stand for all to see, no matter how unpopular they may be at times.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Thank you, Scott. 

I think it is interesting to thing about out how people with minority or fringe interests find each other. It really doesn't matter the topic. But when those involved are a small minority of the population, how do they meet? 

My mother-in-law is gay. My father-in-law is gay. (don't ask) How do they go about finding their partners? (current partners, I mean). I am a straight man, and I believe I have only once in 42 years been propositioned by a gay man. Why doesn't that happen more often? 

The town of Danvers, Mass recently hosted the 'Fetish Faire'; where people could find all of their needs to fulfill any sexual fantasy. But, outside of a gathering like this, how would Mary find someone to train her to become Miss Mary? How would Miss Mary find someone willing to be subserviant to her dominatrix persona?  Never in my life have I had such a conversation. (well .. this one time in college ... .never mind).

Personally, I think nothing about gay couples. And, what people do in the privacy of their own dungeons is none of my business. But, how do they find each other? 

This same question could apply to the attitudes of White Supremecy, and probably many other organizations that society finds displeasing. They have to find some way to communicate with each other. Sometimes, it is done in plain sight or in plain hearing. 

When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, his language ... about 'knowing her heart' ... sounds genuine and innocent enough. But, some of my political stripe posited that was his 'secret handshake' to the Movement Christians that have been so important to his administrations.

Maybe that 'hidden in plain sight' call to racism isn't in the original post. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get me. 


Oh, and on the open borders ... really and truly; Wide Open. I'm not saying that we eliminate all laws in the country. Just the ones that prevent ambitious people from coming to this country to work. If a crook came here and acted like a crook, arrest and prosecute him. I hear there is a tent city in Arizona. As Picard said to Q ... We may have been, once, but Test Us! ... Let their actions once here guide us.


----------



## shinbushi (Feb 9, 2007)

Yes it is easy for those way up north to not worry about the illegal invasion of our southern border, here are some stats to think about.  
Form http://www.alipac.us/article63.html


> By Frosty Wooldridge News With Views.com 11-9-4 In 2003, according to the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles, 57,600 cars were stolen in Phoenix. It is now the car-jacking capital of the world. Most were SUVs and pickup trucks. At a conservative average of $15,000.00 per vehicle, owner losses exceeded $864 million. Insurance companies in the state suffered incredible claims from policyholders. Worse, how would you like to walk out of your home or business to see your car gone? Imagine the hassle, violation of your hard work and disrespect for your well being.
> 
> Where did those vehicles go? Who stole them? Take a guess. Arizona is the temporary home of 500,000 illegal aliens. They cost Arizona taxpayers over $1 billion annually in services for schools, medical care, welfare anchor babies, loss of tax base and prisons. Illegals use those vehicles for smuggling more people and drugs from around the world into our country. When the vehicles are recovered, they are smashed-up wrecks in the desert. If not found, they have new owners south of the border as thieves drive the cars through the desert and into Mexico as easily as you drive your kids to soccer practice. THAT's how porous our borders are! The chilling costs of illegal migration reach like an octopus into every aspect of our lives. Illegal aliens displaced American workers at a cost in excess of $133 billion dollars last year according to Harvard Professor George Borjas. College and high school kids cannot find a summer job in yard care, landscape, fast food or service jobs. Why? Illegal aliens work them at a third the wage and often' under the table. Not only do your kids not have jobs; you,re paying taxes for illegal aliens who are not paying taxes. Annually, 75 percent of drugs arrive from Mexico at a net cost of $120 billion hard currency that leaves our country for good. In addition' our tax dollars pay $80 billion for the War on Drugs each year. It is a war that hasn't been won in the past 30 years and drugs are as available today to your teenager as they were in 1970. When an alien criminal gets caught for rape, murder or drug distribution' you pay $1.6 billion annually in prison costs to house, feed and clothe those filling 30 percent of our federal and state prisons - not to mention TV, movies, weight rooms and other entertainment - they enjoy while being incarcerated. Is your blood boiling at this point? How about illegal alien anchor babies? Over 300,000 women annually arrive pregnant and drop them on U.S. soil. You pay food, housing, medical and schooling for them to age 18 PLUS their mother. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, average annual cost per child K-12 is $7,161.00 and exceeds $109 billion annually per cycle of anchor babies. That's your money given out to 300,000 moms and their kids annually and all they did was get pregnant and birth that child on U.S. soil. If you haven't had a heart attack by now, you'll need Tums after this figure. The average head of household illegal alien costs you $2,700.00 in welfare money over and above any taxes he or she pays in their meager paying jobs. With 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA, that figures exceeds $20 billion of your tax dollars. (Source: Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004) How about the $56 billion in pure cash illegal migrants sent to their home countries last year and every year? That's after their kids enjoyed free education' free lunches and free medical care paid for by you. Mexico receives $15 billion annually from its worker drones. No wonder Vicente Fox sent us 9.2 million illegal alien Mexicans so far. The lifetime net fiscal drain"taxes paid minus services used - for an adult immigrant is $55,200 according to Carrying Capacity Network. Who makes that money up? You do! Your work! Your taxes! With a minimum of 15 million illegal aliens in our country, these figures are the tip of the iceberg. Average bilingual education is $1,200.00 per illegal alien student. Get this! We educate 1.1 million illegal alien children each year. Do the math! Ready for another anvil dropped on your toe fact? You paid $27 billion to provide forms, ballots, interpreters and brochures for languages other than English in 2003. An estimated one-third to one-half illegal aliens work off the books. It costs $200 million to provide for emergency health care for illegal aliens in the Border States annually. California with over three million illegals paid $79 million' BUT four of their major LA hospitals bankrupted and shut their doors in 2004. Texas with 1.5 million illegal aliens paid $74 million in hospital care. Who is Texas? You, the taxpayer, that's who! Because you, in your state, pay commensurate medical care according to your illegal alien population. Georgia ran a $63 million deficit for 64,000 unpaid doctor visits to their Grady Health Care system in 2002. In the same year, Georgia taxpayers paid $27 million for 11,188 anchor baby hospital births. Georgia taxpayers paid a whopping $242 million for educating illegal alien kids in 2003. What is it in your state? What are the consequences? One in two adult African-Americans in New York is unemployed. African-American children's poverty grew by 50 percent since 1999. Why? Their dads can't find work. It costs you, the taxpayer, $68 billion a year JUST to pay for the resettlement of legal immigrants. Fellow Americans, we are $7.384 trillion in debt as of November 1, 2004. This year's budget deficit exceeds $413 billion. Our trade deficit stands at $400 billion. Our consumer debt exceeds $2 trillion and our average credit card carries an $8,000.00 balance. Our U.S. government borrows $1.6 billion daily from foreign banks, just to stay afloat. Have you ever heard of the Titanic? We are taking on heavy immigration numbers while we,re being financially bled to death. Are we in trouble or what? Who brings this fiscal nightmare into America? Take a guess. The majority of your Congress! President George W. Bush himself! Tom Ridge, who won't guard our borders from this invasion' but gets his orders from Bush! Illegals are arriving at over 4,000 per night according to Time Magazine, September 12, 2004, "Who Left the Door Open?" I quote, "That total of illegal aliens flooding into the United States this year will total three million"enough to fill 22,000 737 Boeing airliners, or 60 flights every day for a year." Don't you think with that many illegals crossing nightly that anyone with a brain would send troops to our border to protect from an invasion? Since we just re-elected the same Congress and president, you can expect more of the same. You can count on your corporations devouring cheap labor as they send you to the unemployment lines. Additionally, they pay PAC groups to keep senators and congressmen in their back pocket. How do I know? Only 22 companies in 2003 were taken to court for hiring illegal aliens. None went to jail. However, it's a $10,000.00 fine per illegal alien hired and up to five years in prison. You would think that would deter corporations. Not when they've bought off enforcement! Who else figures in this grand scheme? Your governors and mayors who provide sanctuary laws for illegal aliens! Mayor Bloomberg of New York City. Governor Baldacci of Maine! Governor Bill Owens of Colorado! Mayor Hickenlooper of Denver! Mayor of Los Angeles! Mayor of San Francisco! Mayor of Chicago! Mayor of Miami! How do I know? All those cities and dozens more give sanctuary to illegal aliens with Special Order 40. Illegals remain in our country with exemption from arrest"yet, they are federal criminals! Can you blame millions of desperate people for coming illegally to America? Hardly! Do you think they will stop coming since the world adds 80 million annually of poor, hopeless people from war torn' ravaged and impoverished Third World countries? Not a chance! This is the land of free milk and honey. As long as our leaders allow the invasion and not enough Americans speak up, you can expect 12 million more illegal aliens in the next four years. Who pays for this invasion of your country? You do! As a final note, if you,re as sick of this nation-destroying dilemma as I am, go to my web site. I'll send you an action letter with 17 effective points to change our nation's suicidal course. Whatever your talent, you will become a part of this movement to save our country from this disaster being brought to us by our leaders. You may send that action email out to your friends and they can send it to their friends. As Americans we must link arms, hearts and minds to take action to preserve our country and force our leaders to stop this illegal immigration madness. It's called a 'consciousness shift' and it's going to take every one of us. That means everything you do, COUNTS! Frosty Wooldridge is a teacher and author who has bicycled 100,000 miles on six continents to see overpopulation up close and ugly. His explosive new book is: "IMMIGRATION'S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES." Copies may be obtained: 1 888 280 7715 Read entire story here. Read copy at Rense.com.


----------



## bydand (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Oh, and on the open borders ... really and truly; Wide Open. I'm not saying that we eliminate all laws in the country. Just the ones that prevent ambitious people from coming to this country to work. If a crook came here and acted like a crook, arrest and prosecute him. I hear there is a tent city in Arizona. As Picard said to Q ... We may have been, once, but Test Us! ... Let their actions once here guide us.



Damn it man, I am beginning to see where you are coming from.   You might (and it pains me to say this) have a point. I have no problem with letting in those who are willing to work and become a productive member of the Country.  I think a wide open border would cause a vast increase in problems, more than the benefits could outweigh, but also have to concede the point that it is too constrictive as it is right now.  Where that middle ground is, I don't have an answer and am thankful I am not the one who has to come up with the answer to that question.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Pivoting back to immigration ... 

I saw this on the HuffPo 



			
				Karl Rove said:
			
		

> I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.


 
He was explaining the President's guest worker program, apparently. 

The article has another interesting old quote it



> In the United States professions are more or less laborious, more or less profitable; but they are never either high or low: every honest calling is honorable.


 
and this ... 



> but most importantly it would change the very nature of our society for the worse, creating whole occupations deemed to be unfit for respectable Americans, for which little brown people have to be imported from abroad. In other words, mass immigration, even now, is moving us toward an unequal, master-servant society.


 
Although, I don't believe it is mass immigration that is accomplishing this division, but rather that immigration is 'illegal' ... which gives the employer power over the worker beyond compensation.


----------



## bydand (Feb 9, 2007)

shinbushi said:


> Yes it is easy for those way up north to not worry about the illegal invasion of our southern border, here are some stats to think about.



We don't have the influx of the Hispanic population, true.  But, you don't have to worry about the numbers of Canadians who come across and take jobs on this side.  Can't tell where they are from just by looking or listening to them either.  

Granted we have nowhere near the people crossing the border, but we do have a giant problem with drugs coming down from the North.  In Maine alone there are hundreds of miles of border without so much as a house along it and the criminal element is having a field day with it.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 9, 2007)

Mike you said If a crook came here and acted like a crook, arrest and prosecute him.

Problem is we are talking about Illegal immigrants see that first word. He came in a crook so arrest him.

The post is dealing with illegal immigration. Not the Klan. Funny how things get introduced into the post to steer the comments away from the original. How long are they gonna beat that dog?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 9, 2007)

Even during the mass imigrations of the late 1800's-early 1900's you had to go through the proper procedures. Remember Ellis Island?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

jetboatdeath said:


> Mike you said If a crook came here and acted like a crook, arrest and prosecute him.
> 
> Problem is we are talking about Illegal immigrants see that first word. He came in a crook so arrest him.
> 
> The post is dealing with illegal immigration. Not the Klan. Funny how things get introduced into the post to steer the comments away from the original. How long are they gonna beat that dog?


 
Throughout my posts on this thread, I have advanced my position that there should be NO LAWS prohibiting anyone from entering the country. Therefore, there could be ZERO Illegal immigrants. The laws that restrict people from coming to this country, for any reason, should be revoked, rewritten and eliminated.

When it was written "We the People of the United States of America ... ", it was inclusive of anyone who had the guts to come to these shores. (Oh, sure, women, and slaves, and non-land owning males didn't count, but you understand what I am saying). Don't know why it needs to be any different today. 

And, your original post deals with bigotry, not illegal immigration.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Even during the mass imigrations of the late 1800's-early 1900's you had to go through the proper procedures. Remember Ellis Island?


 
Yes, I do remember. Let me quote myself. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I believe anyone who wants to come to American to live or work, should cross the border freely, walk into a Social Security Office and get a legal document that allows them to work, earn money and participate in the system.


 
I think that spells out a 'proper procedure' that is plenty complete. And probably just about equal to what happened on Ellis Island.

EDIT - I just read a short piece about the lengthy process immigrants faced at Ellis Island. It was new information to me. But, the records indicate that approximately 98% of people petitioning from Ellis Island were admitted into our Union. - END EDIT


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 9, 2007)

In a rare instance of agreeing with Michael, I think it's foolish that going from one piece of dirt to another is 'illegal'.  We are here 'legally' because we got her first, and now we say you can't come here.


The border shouldn't be guarded by troops, it should be manned by buerocrats with SSAN cards to hand to everyone that comes across.  Get 'em in and get 'em working and get 'em paying taxes; get 'em a part of us


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> EDIT - I just read a short piece about the lengthy process immigrants faced at Ellis Island. It was new information to me. But, the records indicate that approximately 98% of people petitioning from Ellis Island were admitted into our Union. - END EDIT


 
Thats all Im sayin. However, like an Island in NY harbor. I dont agree with the "cross the border freely" part. If you can show you are not a criminal/wanted/a terrorist than fill out your papers and come on in. Unsecured borders is a recipe for all sorts of bad stuff.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> In a rare instance of agreeing with Michael, I think it's foolish that going from one piece of dirt to another is 'illegal'.


 
Oh, Crap! :xtrmshock ... Now I got to go figure out how I thought this through so carefully ... and then got it wrong! 

If FearlessFreep and I are agreeing on something ... one of us has got to be wrong. :duel:

I think it's my turn. :uhoh:


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 10, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> In a rare instance of agreeing with Michael, I think it's foolish that going from one piece of dirt to another is 'illegal'.  We are here 'legally' because we got her first, and now we say you can't come here.
> 
> 
> The border shouldn't be guarded by troops, it should be manned by buerocrats with SSAN cards to hand to everyone that comes across.  Get 'em in and get 'em working and get 'em paying taxes; get 'em a part of us



I think the problem is that we could make every illeagle alien a citizen today and overnight they would change from people who worked illeaglly...

....to people who can't work at all.

When we are talking about most illeagle immigrants we are talking about unskilled labor that can't speak functional English.

This of course describes a lot of our anscestors once they got off the ship at Ellis Island. 

But our forefathers where willing to work really crappy jobs for little pay and no safety net for the chance to either improve themselves, or have their children grow up with chances they never had. If they fell off of a roof, they had to arrange for a way to get to a doctor and pay for it themselves. They did not get paid for missed work, or for having a kid unless their employer was willing to do so.

Quite simply put, a person who has no job skills and can't speak Engish is barred from ever getting the jobs that our anscestors got. Now the employer *if they employ the person legally* has to not only pay what the government tells them they will pay, they also have to shell out for unemployment insurance, health coverage, maternity leave.....and the list goes on.

I used to work for a Japanese couple at their restraunt. They got around the  problems of being employed by working for themselves. They were there to set up by the time they opened for lunch at 11 and left after cleaning up after the last customer was served at 10 pm. No health insurance AFAIK, one day off a week, etc. But they were willing to do it to raise their daughter in a country where she had less sexism and more oppurtunity. And the last I heard, she had a MBA and was doing very, very well.

And thier story is not the only one. You can see a lot of little stores opened up by Koreans who work long hours and avoid a lot of taxes and such by using family members. Their kids are setting the standards in the school system and are getting better jobs than their parents could ever hope to get in the old country.

But for the guys that just want to come here and work their butts off for someone else for a chance to make their lives or their kids lives better- we have functionally barred them from ever getting a legal job in the name of compassion.

Something to think about. I really do not know how we can change this fundemental fact.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 10, 2007)

Don, it's because, fpr whatever reason or root cause, we've made life much more complicated and controlled.

The Apollo Project could not be accomplished today in nearly the same time frame.

Neither the US Highway system, nor many of our greater civil engineering accomplishments.

Too much paperwork, too much fear of risk, too much regulation.  It's made us safer, at the cost of making us ineffective.

and then it trickles out to all aspects our our reality, our day to day living.  Much rarer and more difficlt for a guy to show up in need of a bed and a few meals to cut wood or wash dishes for the day or two

We've outgrown some of our barbarism, and lost some of our drive to live.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 10, 2007)

I think that drive can still be found in those who are willing to fight to enter this country; paying exhorbitant bribes to coyotes, crossing dangerous rivers or deserts to bypass the legal entry points, living in cardboard shanty towns in the hills behind local 'McMansions'. I think there is some drive there. 

As for a workforce that is unable to work, there are reportedly between eleven and twelve million people in this country right now that can be described as 'illegal immigrants'. They are cleaning the floors of our offices at night. During the day, they are cleaning the hotel rooms in which we sleep. They are picking the strawberries and lettuce and broccoli we demand at our local grocery store. They are re-building what is being rebuilt in the city of New Orleans. 

They are doing the 'Hard Work' in our society. When I work hard, it is with my brain. I apply my talents, intellect and energy to solve problems. For these 'illegal immigrants', they are working hard, moving that pile of rocks from over there, to over here. Carrying that round boulder up the hill, to see it roll back down again; allowing him to start over. 

Every immigrant population was ostracized a bit when they arrived. But, in a few generations, they became Americanized to lesser or greater degrees. (My mother in law still speaks French around the dinner table at times). 

But, for this immigrant population, we have made them all criminals. Is there a more certain way to guarantee that they will not, two generations hence, be Americans. Not only do they live in Shanty Towns, but because we name them 'criminals' and ostracize them to a greater extent than any prior generation, we are forcing them to keep and fight for their non-American heritage. 

Talk about an unintended consequence.


----------



## grydth (Feb 10, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think that drive can still be found in those who are willing to fight to enter this country; paying exhorbitant bribes to coyotes, crossing dangerous rivers or deserts to bypass the legal entry points, living in cardboard shanty towns in the hills behind local 'McMansions'. I think there is some drive there.
> 
> As for a workforce that is unable to work, there are reportedly between eleven and twelve million people in this country right now that can be described as 'illegal immigrants'. They are cleaning the floors of our offices at night. During the day, they are cleaning the hotel rooms in which we sleep. They are picking the strawberries and lettuce and broccoli we demand at our local grocery store. They are re-building what is being rebuilt in the city of New Orleans.
> 
> ...



There are two sides to any story, and you are doing an able job of presenting one. I think there are some valid points. But...

We did not make illegal aliens criminals. Like most other modern nation states, we have long had laws governing citizenship and residency. Within those laws, it is possible to come here from other countries...... to openly live and to work legally. By violating these laws, they have made themselves criminals. As a matter of law, you are incorrect on this.

I have 3 legal immigrants employed at our work place, and they indeed exemplify the traits you say immigrants have. But generalizing motive and intent to all members of any class is wrong no matter which end of the political spectrum does it. So, while there are many hard workers, there are also many drug lords profitting by selling poison from overseas to our children. There are drunk drivers without insurance, murderers and rapists, crime cartels from other countries. Let's not forget those visitors who perpetrated 9/11 either.

A recent large scale arrest was prompted by citizen complaints - they were dead tired and sick of watching illegals tossing forms into the trash declaring,"Taxes? We don't pay taxes!" Many in fact do not. Many more arrive at hospitals and then scram, leaving us to pay their bills. Used to be called theft of services, but I guess it's okay when they do it?

Some immigrants do come here for a better life, but others as a virus to exploit and then kill the host.

By the way, what would you do under your open borders scheme if a mere 300 million Chinese decided to move here? Just hand the country over?


----------



## Ray (Feb 10, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray, what if Country B said, "Hey everybody, come in. There are no laws preventing you from coming."
> 
> Is worker from Country A then illegal?


Wow...are you asking me: if there is no law against something then is it a legal act?  "What if"-- my children used to play that game when they were little and lived at home.  

Sometimes you just have to face the facts as they are.  There is a procedure, there are laws and anyone breaking the law is a criminal---by definition, that's what a criminal is.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 10, 2007)

I see the previous comments as being directed at two separate issues: What is, and What should be....

Fact is, there's a procedure for immigrating legally, and it should be followed.  Those who don't are breaking the law.

Should the law be changed?  Well, that's a different, though very interesting question entirely.   Should a country regulate immigration, i.e., who can and who cannot immigrate?  I think there are a few ways to look at this.  In a way, regulating who can immigrate is protectionist - not a very free market type of position.  Generally, regulation has to do with controlling or encouraging better representation along particular skill lines, so as to provide some type of economic benefit to the national economy.  

On the other hand, removing those types of restrictions is more of a free market approach.  Let whomever shall come, come.  Let them fill their own niche, and let the labour market sort it out.  The question is, would this approach curtail abuse of government social programs?  IMO, not likely.  People still won't want to pay taxes, people still won't want to pay for health care.

So, in my opinion, the argument that illegal immigration is responsible for all of this societal abuse, crime, etc, is not necessarily true.  It is entirely possible that people are people, no matter where they're from, and will break the law because, quite simply, they are prepared to take that risk.  For them, the risk of being caught does not outweigh the benefit of committing the crime.  I'm not sure that any type of immigration control is going to put a stop to this.  Either opening the border or building a fence is not going to stop people from doing what they want to do. 

So, perhaps the most reasonable solution is to ascertain what seems to be the natural flow of events and attempt to manage it, rather than force things otherwise.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 10, 2007)

_
Some immigrants do come here for a better life, but others as a virus to exploit and then kill the host.
_

Interestingly enough, the same dicohtomy is present in the citizens as well.

Nobody judged my worthiness for citizenship.  I was given it simply for the fortuitous occurance of having been born here.  Many of us fall in them same category, yet I would not want to be the one to determine who deserves it and who doesn't.

The problem is that the current laws create a person who is 'illegal' simply for wanting a better life, but that illegal status then creates a whole host of problems; such as  the fact  that these illegal immigrants don't pay taxes and t herefore don't support basic services of which they use (from busses to emergency medical care).  Most probems with illegal immigration are generated simply *because* someone has decide to make them illegal..


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2007)

I don't want to add to an argument I know little about but I do want to say how hard it is to actually get into America legally. My daughter only wanted to work in Florida for a few months, she'd been offered a job with a race horse trainer who was based in New York to work for him when he moved the yard to Florida for the winter. There is a shortage of well trained staff by all accounts. She would have had a return ticket and had no intention of staying as she has a very good job here, both her boss and she thought it would be good experience. The sheer difficulty  of getting through the red tape to obtain visas and work permits plus the suspicion she was treated with made her give up,  She went to Dubai instead.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 10, 2007)

Ray said:


> Wow...are you asking me: if there is no law against something then is it a legal act? "What if"-- my children used to play that game when they were little and lived at home.
> 
> Sometimes you just have to face the facts as they are. There is a procedure, there are laws and anyone breaking the law is a criminal---by definition, that's what a criminal is.


 
Ray ... I don't disagree with you that we need to face facts as they are. One fact is our immigration laws are ineffective and unenforcable. Some might say that fulfills the definition of 'broken'. When stuff is broken, it generally should be fixed, or thrown out. My suggestion is to throw the laws out. They don't work. They are counter productive. They create a tiered society. One of the things we moved away from when we broke with Europe. The last thing we should be doing is creating a new Caste system. 

The facts are, until 1862, there were no laws against any person from any nationality entering the country. How one earth did our young nation survive those first 80 years. In 1862, the first immigration laws were enecated, restrictions were placed on those from China.

Laws are written by people. And we can change them.  

So, why not "What if ... there were no immigration laws?"


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 10, 2007)

I have a question, somthing I am not familiar with at all, maybe one of you are...

How many countrys can you just show up in, start working, and live there and say "Honey I'm home!"?

Is that the world norm, or do most countries have some immigration control? 

​


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 10, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> do most countries have some immigration control?​


 
Can't speak for all but China does, and I believe Japan does as well, but I am going out on a limb there.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2007)

In the EC we all have the right to go to a member country to live and work.It's caused a bit of a panic though as new member countries which are considerably poorer than the rest may be emptied of it's populations as they all descend on the richer countries!


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 10, 2007)

Flatlander said:


> On the other hand, removing those types of restrictions is more of a free market approach.  Let whomever shall come, come.  Let them fill their own niche, and let the labour market sort it out.  The question is, would this approach curtail abuse of government social programs?  IMO, not likely.  People still won't want to pay taxes, people still won't want to pay for health care.



This touches on a very imporant point about opening our arms to *all* immigrants and making them all legal.

I notice in this thread that no one is complaining about illeagles stealing jobs. The complaints I mainly see are that an increasing number of them seem to be using services that the legal citizens pay for, but they don't have to.

The question is, if we open up our borders are we going to attract those that will contribute to the tax base, or take more from it?

When the Statue of Liberty was built there was no welfare, no social security, no food stamps, no free health care...etc. The only thing promised was freedom. In other words, people came here because they thought _they would be left alone._

Someone coming to America a century ago would have fully expected *to die* if they failed or they did not take care of themselves. The people that took the risk were the ones that thought they would do well if they just had the the chance to give their all to what they did. And as a whole they did pretty well I think.

But now, we have people born in this country that abuse the system. Welfare mothers come to mind, but there are many others we can all think of.

So if we do not make things as difficult as Tez3 has pointed out, will we attract those that want to work- or will we attract every last person who has drunken away their health and savings by age 60 and can scrape together enough for a one way ticket?

If you have all the freebies that Amercans have come to consider their god- given right and no restriction on who can apply for them you *are* going to attract the type of folks that would become welfare mothers from countries that will not bail out lazy people. You merely have to look at the way it seems that more and more illeagles seem to come here for the benifits than prior years when they were barred from them to think about what the problem would be like if _everybody_ was allowed to become a citizen.

So are those (like me) that want to throw open the doors to everyone that wants to come here and make them legal willing to pay for every last sponger in the world- or should we cut out _all_ forms of taking money from one person to pay someone who takes no responsibility for their actions?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 10, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Welfare mothers come to mind, but there are many others we can all think of.


 
I learned recently that Statue of Liberty was originally concieved to be built in Egypt. Only when Egypt couldn't raise the funds, did the upraised arm get changed to a lamp, and New York Harbour was chosen as a location. 

That aside ... the phrase "welfare mothers" is one of those code words that lives on since the Great Fabricator Ronald Reagan. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 limits the amount of social service a woman can receive in her lifetime. Further, it mandates that those collecting federal social services work up to most of a full time job in order to be able to receive those services.  

I do not mean to imply there are no abuses of the system. But many of the stereotypes thrown about have been eliminated. 

As for taxes paid by .... my employer withholds taxes due from my paycheck. I bet yours does too. So what companies are employing workers and don't withhold their taxes? Wouldn't it be easier to crack down on those employers? Do we really think there are 12 million day laborers in the country?


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 10, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I do not mean to imply there are no abuses of the system. But many of the stereotypes thrown about have been eliminated.
> 
> As for taxes paid by .... my employer withholds taxes due from my paycheck. I bet yours does too. So what companies are employing workers and don't withhold their taxes? Wouldn't it be easier to crack down on those employers? Do we really think there are 12 million day laborers in the country?



But you have to admit that there are a lot of people that abuse the system- even if you don't want to admit that there are as many problems about welfare mothers as many think.

And I am not really worried about people that come to America and start working and then have to rely on the system. What concerns me are the folks that would come here and either not work at all, or do only the minimum needed to qualify.

Let me give an example. About 15 years or so ago _The Los Angeles Times_ ran a series of articles on abuses of the medical systems in California. The laws were such that anyone going into a medical center and saying they were an illeagle alien had to be treated for anything that could be life threatening with no questions asked and no reporting to immigration or law enforcement. The articles were not on real illeagle immigrants- but on people who were flying in from other countries to get organ transplants free. The Times found that there were groups and orginizations in other countries that would arrange for the travel and coach people on how to get free a service that would cost a good amount of money in their native countires.

So if we open up our borders and give citizenship to anyone who wants it, how are we tobe sure that the majority will not be the type to go straight to the welfare office? I can see people in this thread complaining that illeagles are already taking up tax monies in the form of benifits- and that is after they have to dodge patrols and immigration sweeps just to get into the country.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2007)

That is a baby/bathwater arguement. 

Illegal immigrants drive on highways built with tax dollars. Should we build no more highways? 

Illegal immigrants attend public schools. Should we eliminate all public schooling? 

Keep in mind, that the parent of the student, may very well be paying the local excise taxes, via rent, to pay for those schools. Sure, the family may be living in a shanty shack that is not taxed, but where is the bigger crime? 

And, if we prohibit the illegal immigrant of student age from attending school, what do you think they will be doing all day? Might having whole communities of children legally truant create a whole new set of problems.

And, if "clinics" in California are performing organ transfers, there is something wrong with our medical system. Something in that anecdote doesn't sound right to me. 


It seems that many people in congress are adopting a 'Zero Tolerance' attitude toward undocumented workers. Zero Tolerance is always a dumb idea. 

My daughter works are a local store, unpacking boxes, and making custom frames. This job requires her to work with a razor blade - the kind of blade 19 guys crashed four planes with - one she ended up at school with her work tool in her pocket. She received a ten day suspension. Simply for possessing a razor blade. Zero Tolerance is a damn stupid idea. 

Are there ways to fix the program? Can the program realistically be eliminated in our society today? 

Do we really need to throw the baby out with the bath water?


----------



## Amazon (Feb 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As for taxes paid by .... my employer withholds taxes due from my paycheck. I bet yours does too. So what companies are employing workers and don't withhold their taxes? Wouldn't it be easier to crack down on those employers? Do we really think there are 12 million day laborers in the country?



And how do you plan on finding those employers that aren't witholding taxes from a paycheck?  Not to mention that most aren't paying by check at all - they are using cash for the purposes of not leaving any proof that they are paying for anything at all.  Also the fact that they don't exactly walk up to Secretary of State or Tax Department and register a Corporation or an LLC that is monitored for whether or not they are witholding.



bydand said:


> Damn it man, I am beginning to see where you are coming from.   You might (and it pains me to say this) have a point. I have no problem with letting in those who are willing to work and become a productive member of the Country.  I think a wide open border would cause a vast increase in problems, more than the benefits could outweigh, but also have to concede the point that it is too constrictive as it is right now.  Where that middle ground is, I don't have an answer and am thankful I am not the one who has to come up with the answer to that question.



I have yet to see the issue address of what happens when other countries ship us all their criminals, rather than paying to imprison or maintain them, and then a large majority of them commit crimes here and then we prosecute them.  It's all well and good to say that they might not commit a crime once they get there - but I believe there are more than enough studies from a multitude of sources (biased, unbasided, and from both sides of bias) showing that the psychology of criminal behavior is that it is repetitive in nature and only tends to increase in scale with each repetition.

Not to mention that no matter how many would commit a crime once here - anyone that commits a crime in another country would most likely be sent here.  By this model we would literally end up paying to support the imprisonment (or whatever other punishment set forth for crime) for every criminal in the world.



Tez3 said:


> In the EC we all have the right to go to a member country to live and work.It's caused a bit of a panic though as new member countries which are considerably poorer than the rest may be emptied of it's populations as they all descend on the richer countries!



Hi Tez!  I just have a quick question since I'm not very familliar with the laws that you mentioned.  What happens if one goes to another country in the EC and does not work?



michaeledward said:


> Illegal immigrants drive on highways built with tax dollars. Should we build no more highways?
> 
> Illegal immigrants attend public schools. Should we eliminate all public schooling?



This makes no sense in relation to what you are responding to.  Please explain on what thread of logic you are performing an exegesis to reach these conclusions.



> Keep in mind, that the parent of the student, may very well be paying the local excise taxes, via rent, to pay for those schools. Sure, the family may be living in a shanty shack that is not taxed, but where is the bigger crime?



Both families are in this country legally.  If the person living in a shanty shack eventually winds up on their feet and starts working they will be paying taxes into the system.  A family here illegally is mostly likley working but is not paying those taxes.

As for what happens if the shanty shack family never works - there is a point to be made that there is a difference between educating the children of our citizens that have become unfortunate (and who were probably not always unfortunate and thus either they or their parents/predecessors paid taxes at one point) in an attempt to stop the cycle and bringing in families who are already not working and just want us to educate their kids for free.



> And, if we prohibit the illegal immigrant of student age from attending school, what do you think they will be doing all day? Might having whole communities of children legally truant create a whole new set of problems.



Might I suggest that that is the reason that the current laws call for deportation of illegal immigrants?  The children of those that wanted to come here and did it through the proper channels are in school.



> And, if "clinics" in California are performing organ transfers, there is something wrong with our medical system. Something in that anecdote doesn't sound right to me.



Not "clinics" - hospitals.  Trust me - I live here.  The hospitals are not allowed to refuse anyone needing treatment for an immediately life threatening issue regardless of their citizenry.  The assumption is that the recipients of the treatment will pay their bills but we all know that most of the time the bills don't get paid.  

It has made it so that the costs for healthcare here have risen dramatically.  Many California residents will tell you that they now have to pay much higher premiums for their health insurance.  

The insurance companies are passing on the higher costs in higher premiums.  Those that have health coverage through thier employers are also now having to pay an increased portion of their premiums because employers cannot absorb 100% of the increases.  And before you start in about the corporations that you seem to think have endless pockets - remember all the corporations that are small and medium sized businesses.

It appears to me that many of your arguments are based on the over-simplification of the conseqences, or failure to examine what all of the consequences may be, of actions that could be taken and use this as leverage to criticize non-action.

It's no secret that the laws need reforming, and I think that the vast majority agrees on this.  It is tremendously difficult to enter this country.  However, it is important to measure the consequences of our actions before we just run around doing what feels good.  Whatever action is taken - we need to be ready to accept all of the consequences that come with it - forseen or not.

*ending serious mode* I personally think it would be a good idea to let in anyone who's not a criminal, will work, and would be willing to live only in the midwest.    (No offense to anyone living in the mid-west, but you all have to admit it's pretty empty out there).


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 11, 2007)

Ray said:


> There is a procedure, there are laws and anyone breaking the law is a criminal---by definition, that's what a criminal is.



Immigration violations are not part of the criminal code.  They are handled by separate immigration courts, and the only adjudicated punishment is deportation.  Immigration violators are not considered felons.  After all, building code requirements are law too - but having a sub-code house doesn't make you a criminal.



michaeledward said:


> So what companies are employing workers and don't withhold their taxes? Wouldn't it be easier to crack down on those employers? Do we really think there are 12 million day laborers in the country?



Most illegal aliens working as established employees do so using a fake or "borrowed" Social Security Number.  As such, taxes are withheld, but it goes without saying that most won't file a return for any amount owed them!  This is a source of tax benefit from illegal aliens that many fail to take into account.  Of course, this doesn't cover the "day laborer" type person in the cash economy.



Amazon said:


> The hospitals are not allowed to refuse anyone needing treatment for an immediately life threatening issue regardless of their citizenry.



This is true...up to a point.  The sticking word is "immediately".  If an illegal alien has been shot or is having a heart attack, they will indeed receive critical care.  However, this doesn't extend to longer term treatments for life threatening conditions, and most definitely won't apply to organ transplants (even if it did, any alien would still have to wait in line, just like everyone else).  So for instance, most chronic care drugs like beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors won't be covered, nor most surgeries.  In fact, there is an argument to be made that not covering earlier, simpler treatments results in more costs due to more catastrophic conditions present when the non-insured shows up at the ER ready to die.



Amazon said:


> It appears to me that many of your arguments are based on the over-simplification of the conseqences, or failure to examine what all of the consequences may be, of actions that could be taken and use this as leverage to criticize non-action.



This is my basic attitude on the whole issue.  People simplify this issue on either side too much (not pointing any fingers in this thread BTW), and fail to take into account our good friend Murphy and his immutable law.  There WILL be consequences, and heaving the response to one side or the other (open border vs. militarized lockdown) with no attempt at mitigation insures that whatever the consequences are will be more severe.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 11, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> After all, building code requirements are law too - but having a sub-code house doesn't make you a criminal.



Technically, No... Building codes are CODES not LAWS (at least here) and are enforced by _Code _enforcement, not _Law_ enforcement, and you are not taken to court for violating them, but you can be fined by the  (again, here) Village Board.

Illegal Aliens are still arrested by law enforcement, Tried in a court and possibly deported by the Government.

Big difference between those two examples.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 11, 2007)

Amazon said:


> I have yet to see the issue address of what happens when other countries ship us all their criminals, rather than paying to imprison or maintain them, and then a large majority of them commit crimes here and then we prosecute them.



Excellent  point!

Not only would eleminating the vetting and restrictions we have bring in people that are attracted by the fact that unemployed people in America get more from various programs than people working from dawn to dusk in their native countries, and not only will we merely create a whole lot of illeagel aliens working off the books to a lot of legal aliens working off the book, but we will see a whole lot of countries sending us the people they don't want to deal with.

Some communities in America have been found to have their officers drop derilicts off in other cities- and that is not a case of one place hating another. Can you imagine what kind of giggles Victor Chavez would get by eliminating the need to pay the prison expenses for all those child molestors, violent criminals and such by sending them to the US? We saw Castro slip in a few criminals when there was that massive influx several years back. With lowered immigration coverage, there would not even be a need to slip in only a few per large group.

And it is not just the criminals. Take a look at how AIDs is devestating many of the countries in Africa. The countries can't or won't pay for the consequenses of the disease on a lot of their population. And if there was any country like the US that would take them in and had a health care system even a tenth as free and open, I would bet they would not even try. It would be much easier to ship all the people affected. The people dying of the disease and the families left without a breadwinner after AIDs has killed them. 

Right now, I know of *no country* that takes in just anyone. A century ago, when nothing was given to the people, there really was no use of the term "illeagle alien." But with all the services paid for by taxes, now their is a need to make sure that you attract more people that will pay taxes than take money from the system.


----------



## bydand (Feb 11, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> After all, building code requirements are law too - but having a sub-code house doesn't make you a criminal.



Just to expand on Cryozombie's information about this as well.  May not be a criminal, but they can make you homeless real quick.  I have worked in construction for 25 years now as an Electrician and have seen big, big fines and occupancy permits denied  due to non compliance with building codes. (Not electrical I might add.  )  I know of a 2.5 million dollar house that was built in 2004 and it still sits empty and is unsellable due to being too tall to fit an areas building code and zoning laws.  Comparing these types of codes and laws to immigration laws just don't work.


----------



## Amazon (Feb 11, 2007)

bydand said:


> Just to expand on Cryozombie's information about this as well.  May not be a criminal, but they can make you homeless real quick.  I have worked in construction for 25 years now as an Electrician and have seen big, big fines and occupancy permits denied  due to non compliance with building codes. (Not electrical I might add.  )  I know of a 2.5 million dollar house that was built in 2004 and it still sits empty and is unsellable due to being too tall to fit an areas building code and zoning laws.  Comparing these types of codes and laws to immigration laws just don't work.



As true as this may be - can we please keep the focus on the big picture here and not split hairs about miniscule facts.  If we do that this thread will be as long as the "Last Person" thread and we won't be able to have any productive discussion.

I got what he meant - I'm sure you did too.  Let's move along.


----------



## bydand (Feb 11, 2007)

Amazon, if you would be so kind as to PM me when I have permission to post my thoughts again I would be grateful.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 11, 2007)

bydand said:


> Just to expand on Cryozombie's information about this as well.  May not be a criminal, but they can make you homeless real quick.  I have worked in construction for 25 years now as an Electrician and have seen big, big fines and occupancy permits denied  due to non compliance with building codes. (Not electrical I might add.  )  I know of a 2.5 million dollar house that was built in 2004 and it still sits empty and is unsellable due to being too tall to fit an areas building code and zoning laws.  Comparing these types of codes and laws to immigration laws just don't work.



Well, Ok... theres two things at work here... There are building codes for construction that often go hand in hand with laws, like Zoning laws, etc... and their are building codes like the ones that say "No peeling paint" or "No plastic lawn jesus in a bathtub" etc... I was referring to the latter... no LAWS that go with them.

But back on topic I'm shocked to hear that most other countries have immigration requirements... the way this is screamed about here, I REALLY thought that we were being hardline discriminatory racist pigs by requiring people to follow a proceedure to come here... come to find out that's just not the case, seems it's done thruout most of the civilized world... 

Huh, go figure.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 11, 2007)

jetboatdeath said:


> If not blow it off......... along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things.


I would, if such types were actually interested in having migrant workers etc actually pay their fair share. Oddly, guest worker programs are strongly opposed. On top of that, most anti immigration folks also tend to view unskilled workers as worthless and as people who shouldn't earn a dime since their jobs don't require a college degree.


----------



## Amazon (Feb 12, 2007)

bydand said:


> Amazon, if you would be so kind as to PM me when I have permission to post my thoughts again I would be grateful.



I thnk that is a little uncalled for.

My apologies if you took offense to my request that the thread stay on topic. Your had made your point and it seemed that further digression would be leading away from the topic at hand, which would limit the productivity of the discussion at hand.   If you would like to further discuss building codes vs. laws I would be happy to participate with you in a new thread for such. Although, I don't know how much company I would be able to keep you as I am not an expert on building codes - my specialty is corporate law.


----------



## Ray (Feb 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray ... I don't disagree with you that we need to face facts as they are.


Honest, sometimes we do.


michaeledward said:


> One fact is our immigration laws are ineffective and unenforcable


They are enforcable.  The US just isn't enforcing them.


michaeledward said:


> They don't work. They are counter productive. They create a tiered society. One of the things we moved away from when we broke with Europe.


Incorrect.  We had rich and poor; powerful and powerless before the revolution and it continues today.  It is part of our nature to have a "tiered society."  Put 10 or 20 people together and see if they don't form their own heirarchy.


michaeledward said:


> The facts are, until 1862, there were no laws against any person from any nationality entering the country. How one earth did our young nation survive those first 80 years. In 1862, the first immigration laws were enecated, restrictions were placed on those from China.


In the early years we needed an influx of people of all talents to build the country; from farmer to carpenter.  Today we have plenty of people in the US.  I'd like to see 100% employement of the people here.


michaeledward said:


> Laws are written by people. And we can change them.


Only if you get enough support. You haven't been very successful at getting mine and it's very easy to sway my opinion.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2007)

Ray said:


> I'd like to see 100% employement of the people here.


 
The current unemployment rate in the United States is about 4%. Economists tell us that this is just about as close to 'Full Employement' as any economy gets. Now, with an 'illegal immigrant' population of 12 million, lets assume half of those are working. What happens if you take 6 million workers out of the economy?


----------



## Ray (Feb 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The current unemployment rate in the United States is about 4%. Economists tell us that this is just about as close to 'Full Employement' as any economy gets. Now, with an 'illegal immigrant' population of 12 million, lets assume half of those are working. What happens if you take 6 million workers out of the economy?


As of Feb 2, 2007 the unemployement rate for January 2007 was said to be 4.6% (according to the dept of labor).  However, the picture is not so rosy for some minorities: Hispanics 5.7%, blacks 8.0%

While some people say that the jobs done by illegals are jobs that most Americans wouldn't want, it is my contention that by removing the illegals (and/or some guest workers) that the people wanting those jobs done will either have to pay enough to make it attractive to some Americans, or do without.  If the economy can do without out that labor, then it must have been wasted dollars that can be put into investments and/or savings thus stimulating the economy.  If the economy can not do without the tasks being done, then someone who is currently unemployed will do it at the higher pay rate (sure, the turn-over rate may be high; but it might give someone a chance to get back into the labor pool, etc).


----------



## bydand (Feb 12, 2007)

Amazon said:


> I thnk that is a little uncalled for.
> 
> My apologies if you took offense to my request that the thread stay on topic. Your had made your point and it seemed that further digression would be leading away from the topic at hand, which would limit the productivity of the discussion at hand.   If you would like to further discuss building codes vs. laws I would be happy to participate with you in a new thread for such. Although, I don't know how much company I would be able to keep you as I am not an expert on building codes - my specialty is corporate law.



Actually, it was still on topic.  Someone had made a post that drew an anology between violating building codes and illigal immigration.  I was responding to that post.  If you were afraid of a further digression from the original thread topic, address the thread in general, don't quote a specific person then make your observations.  As for building codes -vs- laws, naw I always found the law classes I took to be quite boorish.  Although I did love all the Contract Law courses I took, the general tort ones about put me to sleep.   (No, Law was not my major, just an interest)  

If you are going to quote me, please do so in the context in which my original was posted.  Twice now in this thread you have read meaning into my posts and responded in a manner that wasn't what I said, or implyed. (the last one you nailed dead-on, I was being sarcastic.)

Just to keep it on track though, let me reitterate my stand in immigration.
1) I feel we have an immigration poilicy that is too constrictive and demanding of those who would like to come into the US to work productivly and become a member of our Country and society.

2) I am against a totally open border.

3) I feel it should be mandatory for all who are coming into to the US for work or relocation to go through a screening process to check their background for criminal activity.

4) I agree that statistically someone with a criminal background is more likely to revisit that station in life, than those with no criminal background.  Although that in and of itself is no sure indication of a persons true potential.

5)  I am glad I am not the one to try and figure out the best course of action for the Country to take in this matter.


----------



## shinbushi (Feb 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And, if "clinics" in California are performing organ transfers, there is something wrong with our medical system. Something in that anecdote doesn't sound right to me.


12 Emergency rooms closed within the last 2 years because Illegals do the medical equilivant of dine and dash.  Or public schools system is probably on par with a 3rd world nation because a good chunk of the kids refuse to learn English.  
Just as an FYI my wife came to the US LEGALY from Greece at age 11 with no English skills to speak of, and graduated with honors.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 12, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Big difference between those two examples.





bydand said:


> Comparing these types of codes and laws to immigration laws just don't work.



The point, my literal-minded friends, was not that building codes and immigration law are the same.  Clearly they are not, since I haven't seen any sub-code houses being sent to Tijuana on buses. 

The point was that there is a substantial body of "procedures, rules and laws" to quote my original interlocutor, the violation of which is not a criminal liability, and is adjudicated outside the criminal justice system.  These include building codes (hah!), land-use laws, zoning restrictions, licensing and other business requirements, immigration rules, and the entire set of civil liabilities adjudicated in civil courts.  Violation of these laws is not a criminal matter, and they can't send you to jail - which isn't to say that there aren't consequences.  After all, OJ is on the hook for all future earnings for the verdict in his civil trial for the "wrongful death" of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown, but he will never spend a day in jail for it. 

Why attach so much significance to the categorization of immigration violations as a criminal vs. non-criminal matter?  Because the labeling of all illegal immigrants as "criminals" is not only inaccurate, but becomes a form of demonization.  After all, what do most of us think we should do with criminals?  Lock them up or punish them in some way.  Well, by our own laws, that is not what illegal immigrants deserve, and this characterization obscures that fact and makes productive debate even more difficult.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Now, with an 'illegal immigrant' population of 12 million, lets assume half of those are working. What happens if you take 6 million workers out of the economy?



*I* can find a job then.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 12, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Because the labeling of all illegal immigrants as "criminals" is not only inaccurate,



Wrong.



> Illegal immigration to the United States refers to the act of moving to or settling in the United States temporarily or permanently *in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law.*



Bold Mine.

Last time I checked, the Definition of a CRIMINAL is somone who did somthing in vioilation of the law.  So how is labeling them criminal inaccurate?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 12, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Last time I checked, the Definition of a CRIMINAL is somone who did somthing in vioilation of the law.  So how is labeling them criminal inaccurate?



I just spent a few paragraphs explaining this in post #67...you know, the one you quoted from?  Not all law is criminal law.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 12, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> I just spent a few paragraphs explaining this in post #67...you know, the one you quoted from?  Not all law is criminal law.



Yeah, the same one you "accidentally" called them Immigration "Rules" in.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 12, 2007)

shinbushi said:


> 12 Emergency rooms closed within the last 2 years because Illegals do the medical equilivant of dine and dash.


 Do you have a source for this proposition? 





> Or public schools system is probably on par with a 3rd world nation because a good chunk of the kids refuse to learn English.


Refuse?  Really....  I don't imagine that the "refusal" of students to learn English is a primary contributor to the current educational crisis in the US.  If you can point me to a source that supports your theory, be my guest...


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 12, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Last time I checked, the Definition of a CRIMINAL is somone who did somthing in vioilation of the law.  So how is labeling them criminal inaccurate?



that's probably webster's definition, but there's some shading.  

when many people say 'criminal', they mean a career criminal -- somebody immoral and probably dangerous.  they don't mean their uncle who smokes pot or their brother who hired a hooker for your bachelor party or their father in law who hires illegals to work on his retaining wall.

in that sense, very few illegal immigrants are 'criminals'.  most of them, like our pot smoking uncle, are engaged in just a 'victimless' crime: violating immigration law.  they are neither dangerous nor immoral.

and let's not start another semantic argument over 'victimless'.  illegal immigration is as victimless as gambling and prostitution.  that is to say nobody is hurt directly, but you can make a strong argument for harmful ripple effects in the economy and society in general.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 12, 2007)

But smoking a fattie is a crime, victimless or not.
Again why is it so hard for some people to realize that this is a crime?
OK maybe some immigration laws are dumb or out dated, I really dont know.
But it is a law not a guideline or suggestion. Until the laws change they should be enforced.
I would like to know how these peoples minds might be changed by a simple car accident. Happens every day around here.
Get in a car crash the person at fault was an illegal with no insurance, no permanent address no traceable income and no license.
Your left holding the bag, my neighbors daughter got in an accident like this. They were left paying huge medical bills not to mention a new car. What happened to the driver of the other car? Who knows? 
Was  this victimless ?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 12, 2007)

i don't think anybody is arguing that it isn't a crime.

a lot of people seem to be waking up to the fact that the law as it stands isn't serving the best interests of our society (in that way it is again very much like the legal status of marijuana).

in america, an important step in changing a law that's not working is often large scale breaking of that law.  heck, it worked for civil rights.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 12, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Yeah, the same one you "accidentally" called them Immigration "Rules" in.



Uhh, yeah...mind quoting that from the relevant post?

Even if that was true though, you are still avoiding the point that there is a sizable body of law in the US the breaking of which does not make you a "criminal".


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 13, 2007)

No problem, Friend.  From Post #67... the one _you _specifically bought up... 



Empty Hands said:


> The point was that there is a substantial body of "procedures, rules and laws" to quote my original interlocutor, the violation of which is not a criminal liability, and is adjudicated outside the criminal justice system.  These include building codes (hah!), land-use laws, zoning restrictions, licensing and other business requirements, *immigration rules,* and the entire set of civil liabilities adjudicated in civil courts.  Violation of these laws is not a criminal matter, and they can't send you to jail - which isn't to say that there aren't consequences.  After all, OJ is on the hook for all future earnings for the verdict in his civil trial for the "wrongful death" of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown, but he will never spend a day in jail for it.



I bolded the part you asked me to quote.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 13, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> i don't think anybody is arguing that it isn't a crime.



No?



> Originally Posted by *Empty Hands *
> Violation of these laws is not a criminal matter, <snip>
> the labeling of all illegal immigrants as "criminals" is not only inaccurate,



So if the argument is that it's *not* a criminal matter, and that labeling the people who violate it as criminals is wrong... well, I dunno if it would stand the reasonable person test, but... that sounds a lot like someone arguing that it isn't a crime to me.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 13, 2007)

Flatlander said:


> Refuse?  Really....  I don't imagine that the "refusal" of students to learn English is a primary contributor to the current educational crisis in the US.  If you can point me to a source that supports your theory, be my guest...



I think I should point out that David Dow (Shinbushi) is from the LA area. I think he was talking about his state's educational system rather than the nation's.

You might remember a thread I started a long time ago about how I was making plans for moving back to the states and asking for help. You might also remember that I took California off the list right from the start. Part of that was due to stories I have heard from a couple of people that had kids while in Japan and moved back to California. The troubles they had with trying to get thier kids to be taught in a way they thought best convinced me to try some place with less non native speakers of English.

There are a few theories as to how children should be taught in schools if their first language is not English. Most of us here know them, but I will explain for the few that don't.

One idea is to immerse the kids in the language right from the start. Send them to regular classes for subjects like Math as well as special classes on the language.

The other is to teach the kids in their native language such skills as math while at the same time teach them the new language in special classes.

In the first case, many kids just can't learn much math and such until they get good at the language. So you have to sacrifice other skills to the new language. 

But the problem with the second method is that you have entire communities where English is not spoken. The kids go to school and learn math in Spainish, go home and speak Spainish with their parents, watch TV in Spainish, go to the mall and shop in Spainish.... You get the picture.

And before I give the impression I am down on just one group- I have seen people who have lived in Japan for years and just _refuse_ to learn the language. And there is a lot less safety net to help people that don't speak anything other than English in Japan than there is for people who only speak Spainish in California.

And I often rant about the idiots living in Japan that can't bother to even learn how to order a cup of coffee in Japanese. It gives me a sense of shame that people would come to live here and not make even a small effort to learn the language of the country they are living in.

But of course, there are sections of some major cities in America where as far as a lot of the people are concerned, _they are not_ in America.

And as a teacher I can tell you that there is a huge percentage of students that unless they are convinced that either the teachers or their parents are going to beat them if they don't learn something, or if you can't convince them that learning the subject will someone help them with their social life in the next 15 minutes, that they will refuse to do anything more than go through the motions- if even that.

So you see how there are entire generations in some parts of the US that are not learning the language and tend to think of themselves as being citizens of a country that speaks their language rather than America. They are not being forced to assimilate into the mainstream culture and like most teenagers and kids they take the easy route every time.

Oh, and as an aside, if I can I will be moving back to a place where my kids will be treated as if knowing English is a given fact. If they have toruble with things like math I and my wife will tutor them at night as well as contiue to teach them English if they don't get lessons in school. Based on my experiences with teaching a language and learning another, I think that expecting them to learn in English if far better (with a lot of parential help) than actual language lessons in schools.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 13, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> No?So if the argument is that it's *not* a criminal matter, and that labeling the people who violate it as criminals is wrong... well, I dunno if it would stand the reasonable person test, but... that sounds a lot like someone arguing that it isn't a crime to me.



ya know, i missed that on my first trip through the thread.  how about i amend?

nobody _i agree with_ is arguing that it isn't a crime.  i think it's a debate to wonder whether or not it _should be_ a crime.  also, it's important to consider whether or not illegal immigrants should be treated like dangerous criminals.

historically, people engaged in civil disobedience have had a rough time of it, but they've also enjoyed solid support from a portion of the populace.  the parallels are fairly obvious here.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 13, 2007)

Ya know I can see a trend here. Basically if you make over 90k a year youre for Illegal immigration. (I am not saying in here in general)
Why? Because they have the I am too good to go dig a ditch syndrome.
 But they know that ditch needs to be dug and they sure aren't going to do it.
But they might not be able to make that boat payment if they have to pay a union ditch digger top wages.
So they hire a immigrant worker for ½ the cost and all is good.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 13, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> No problem, Friend.  From Post #67... the one _you _specifically bought up...



Very well, that was incorrectly labeled.  It should read "Immigration laws", I did not intend to write "rules."

Now, are you going to address my point?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 13, 2007)

Not really wanting to get into this but being married to an immigrant and knowing a lot of people who came here legally I have to say they are not all too happy about illegal immigrants either, especially form their own country. 

My first wifes family (totally different country) all of her grand parents aunts and uncles were (legal) immigrants and her family was not all to found of illegal immigrants either.

However with that said I come from an illegal immigrant, it was 3 or 4 generations ago and from Germany but still illegal.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 13, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Now, are you going to address my point?



Not really because, Well, to be honest with you, I don't make the distinction the same way you do.  In my mind, It's like saying a speeding ticket isn't a criminal offense, because you only get fined, you dont get imprisoned, and you don't have to go to court for it.

But the fact still stands it's on your criminal record... 

<shrug>

We have different beliefs as to what consitutes crime I guess.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 13, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> We have different beliefs as to what consitutes crime I guess.



Well, it isn't up to you or me, and it isn't up to beliefs.  What is and isn't a crime is specifically defined in US law.  For support:
"Shortening the term in this way also stereotypes undocumented people who are in the United States as having committed a crime. Under current U.S. immigration law, being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime, it is a civil violation."
From the National Association of Hispanic Journalists
http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2006/March/immigrationcoverage.shtml


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 13, 2007)

You are missing my point... I understand that as long as HR4437 hasnt passed its a civil issue... Ive never argued that. 

We can argue the semantics of it over and over... but the fact remains...

_If you break the law, you are a criminal._ 

It's hard to argue that is not the case.  Regarless of the fact the penalties are minor, like a traffic violation, regardless of the fact it's handled in Civil court...  THEY HAD TO BREAK A LAW TO GET THERE, which brings us back to...


_If you break the law, you are a criminal._


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 13, 2007)

Zombie next time post it in spanish maybe he will get it.


----------



## Amazon (Feb 13, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Not really because, Well, to be honest with you, I don't make the distinction the same way you do. In my mind, It's like saying a speeding ticket isn't a criminal offense, because you only get fined, you dont get imprisoned, and you don't have to go to court for it.
> 
> But the fact still stands it's on your criminal record...
> 
> ...


----------



## Carol (Feb 13, 2007)

Well, since the subject of the thread is immigration...what should be debated IMO is immigration...and not each other.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 13, 2007)

_what should be debated IMO is [the topic at hand]...and not each other._

Are you new here?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 13, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> _what should be debated IMO is [the topic at hand]...and not each other._
> 
> Are you new here?


 

No, she's an MT Moderator trying to nudge the thread back on topic.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 14, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, return to the original topic.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 14, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*_

*Admin. Note:

Any further slurs or racially-based comments will NOT be tolerated.  There will be no more warnings on this matter.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assistant Administrator*


----------



## Ray (Feb 14, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Well, it isn't up to you or me, and it isn't up to beliefs.  What is and isn't a crime is specifically defined in US law.  For support:
> "Shortening the term in this way also stereotypes undocumented people who are in the United States as having committed a crime. Under current U.S. immigration law, being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime, it is a civil violation."
> From the National Association of Hispanic Journalists
> http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2006/March/immigrationcoverage.shtml


Now we know what the journalists think regarding the law.  Do we have any quotes from lawyers or judges?  Or law enforcement officers?  Or INS officers?


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2007)

Amazon said:


> A speeding ticket goes on your driving record.  It does not go on your criminal record.



Do a criminal background check on someone.  I used to do it all the time when I was working Repo.  Traffic Violations you are found guilty of show up.  Maybe it GOES on your driving record, but they _show up_...



Amazon said:


> Yes, you did.  You claimed it's a criminal issue, which is different than a civil issue.



Did I?  Can you point it out to me, I was under the understanding I said it makes you a criminal, not that by law its criminal law.  If you can quote me, I'll retract it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 14, 2007)

jetboatdeath said:


> Zombie next time post it in spanish maybe he will get it.



Yo no soy companero, soy capitan, soy capitan, soy capitan...



Ray said:


> Now we know what the journalists think regarding the law.  Do we have any quotes from lawyers or judges?  Or law enforcement officers?  Or INS officers?



From the Council of State Governments:
"The bill would make illegal immigration a felony instead of a civil violation and calls for a fence along the Arizona-Mexico border."
http://www.csgeast.org/page.asp?id=weeklynewsbulletin84

From Police Chief Magazine:
"But legally admitted aliens overstaying their visas have committed a civil violation, and state and local police have no authority to arrest and detain them."
http://policechiefmagazine.org/maga...on=display_arch&article_id=224&issue_id=22004


----------



## Amazon (Feb 15, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Do a criminal background check on someone.  I used to do it all the time when I was working Repo.  Traffic Violations you are found guilty of show up.  Maybe it GOES on your driving record, but they _show up_...



If you were doing Repo you were more than likley running a comprehensive background check - which pulls up a lot more than just a criminal record.  It also pulls up civil and other matters (i.e. not everything you pull on a background check is a criminal record).

I used to do a lot of hiring and run a lot of background checks.



> Did I?  Can you point it out to me, I was under the understanding I said it makes you a criminal, not that by law its criminal law.  If you can quote me, I'll retract it.



In this post you said that an argument claiming is was not a criminal matter wouldn't stand up to the "reasonable person test":



> So if the argument is that it's *not* a criminal matter, and that labeling the people who violate it as criminals is wrong... well, I dunno if it would stand the reasonable person test


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 15, 2007)

Ah, yes, but you see that is an addition to this:



Cryozombie said:


> Last time I checked, the Definition of a CRIMINAL is somone who did somthing in vioilation of the law.  So how is labeling them criminal inaccurate?



My statement was that Violating A law makes you a criminal.  Now perhaps that is not saying "all Sneeds are Flumps, but not all Flumps are Sneeds"... but thats just my perspective on this.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 15, 2007)

I was thinking about what Jetboat Death Said about Ditch Digging, and Here's a question for the supporters of Illegal Immigration...

Other than the minorities fighting the system for their people to be allowed to come here illegally, How many of you live in these kinds neighborhoods?  

Let me paint a pitcure: Maybe 80% of all the signs are in a foriegn language, and the Grocery store clerks around you don't speak engilsh... so its next to impossible for you to do buisness in your town, you have to go elsewhere for your bread.  There are gangs running the streets in your town, tagging your walls, and the city/township/whatever says that YOU are responsible for painting over it every other week. You look out and the homes around you have 4-6 families living in a 2 bedroom house... not a condition exactly up to snuff with anything that DCFS would find acceptable in a "normal" neighborhood... and speaking of neighborhood there is certainly no _sense_ of neighborhood or community... if something happens, no one sees it... so the crime rate is high, and the arrest rate is low... no one wants to talk to the police, they might find out about the 6 illegal aliens living in a closet in their basement... these are examples of the types of neighborhoods I mean... you can certainly insert any race or group, from the russians and poles, to the hispanics or asians... race isnt so much of an issue as the types of things I mentioned... 

and if you don't live in one of those such neighborhoods...

Would you honestly move there?
​


----------



## Amazon (Feb 15, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Ah, yes, but you see that is an addition to this:
> 
> 
> 
> My statement was that Violating A law makes you a criminal. Now perhaps that is not saying "all Sneeds are Flumps, but not all Flumps are Sneeds"... but thats just my perspective on this.


 
You said very clearly that saying it was not a criminal matter would not stand up to the "reasonable person test'.  Obviously making your point that you believe it to be a criminal matter.  Playing semantics is rather difficult when your original statment was extremely clear.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 15, 2007)

Amazon said:


> You said very clearly that saying it was not a criminal matter would not stand up to the "reasonable person test'.  Obviously making your point that you believe it to be a criminal matter.  Playing semantics is rather difficult when your original statment was extremely clear.



If you don't want to play semantics, then you better stop quoting a portion of what I said and changing its meaning by exclusion.

If you look back at that post you keep (mis)quoting me from, you will see that my comment about the resonable person test was not about whether or not  immigration was a crime, but rather a response to Bushidomartialarts claim that no one was saying it wasnt...

If I may be so bold as to quote what I said as a whole...



> So if the argument is that it's*not* a criminal matter, and that labeling the people who violate it as criminals is wrong... well, I dunno if it would stand the reasonable person test, but... that sounds a lot like someone arguing that it isn't a crime to me.



Notice this part:



> well, I dunno if it would stand the reasonable person test, but... that sounds a lot like someone arguing that it isn't a crime to me.



And you clearly see if you do not OMIT the portion you did that reads 



> that sounds a lot like someone arguing that it isn't a crime to me.



You see that the comment about the reasonable person test is NOT aboout what you keep claiming I said.

Thanks for playing, tho.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 15, 2007)

I have a question:  For those of you stating that illegal immigration is not wrong, then why "force" those same illegals to become citizens, or offer a path to citizenship (a la Bush). 

If you think about it, for illegal immigrants to become citizen's would only hurt them.  They would then have to pay taxes.  Although they make less than the minimum wage, this is somewhat made up for by the fact that they don't have to pay a minimum marginal tax rate of about 15% if they earn over $7,550.  

And let's not forget the free health care, educational expenses, and other things (such as roadways, signal lights, government facilities, policing, fire-fighting) that go along with not paying taxes as they do not.

The only "good" thing about illegal immigration is that they cut down on the price of goods and services in this country.  And even that is subject to debate when considering the job losses suffered by American citizens.  Not only that, but the lowering of wages given to ALL people due to the influx of workers into a labor pool.

And illegal Mexicans send most of their money to Mexico, resulting in an overall loss of circulating money within the United States itself, which lowers the economy.  In fact, money sent from the U.S. to Mexico represents their second highest income of their GDP.

And the biggest difference between the relationship of the U.S. to Mexico vs. the U.S. to Canada or between E.U. States is the disparity in standard of living.  This causes and immediate gap between what Mexican citizens make versus what they MAY provide to the U.S. economy.

Coming to this thread late, so my thought on this are kinda jumbled, but I'd be willing to expand on any topic if requested.


----------



## Ray (Feb 15, 2007)

Somewhere, somehow, I got the idea that congress had control over immigration and policies of it.  Just as the pres has foreign policy as one of his constitutionally defined responsibilites.

However, my legal expert in constitutional law has gone home; or is enroute or has been pulled over for driving under the influence; so I guess I'll never know for sure.


----------



## Amazon (Feb 15, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> If you don't want to play semantics, then you better stop quoting a portion of what I said and changing its meaning by exclusion.
> 
> If you look back at that post you keep (mis)quoting me from, you will see that my comment about the resonable person test was not about whether or not immigration was a crime, but rather a response to Bushidomartialarts claim that no one was saying it wasnt...
> 
> ...


 
The addition that you quoted doesn't change anything.  It still says that you think that claiming it's not a criminal matter wouldn't stand up to the reasonable person test.  You then just went on to add that it sounds to you like he is making the claim that it's not a criminal matter (I guess implying that he is not a reasonable person).


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 15, 2007)

Amazon said:


> The addition that you quoted doesn't change anything..



You can't be ****ing serious.

Oh... wait, I get it... your siggy sums it all up.

Here. Lemme make this REALLY REALLY SIMPLE FOR YOU...

I said that the reasonable person test could be applied to EMPTY HANDS COMMENT to determine _*IF HE WAS SAYING*_ IMMIGRATION WASN'T A CRIME, in response to  BUSHIDOMARTIALARTS claim that NO ONE WAS SAYING THAT IT WASN'T A CRIME...

GET IT YET?  IT had NOTHING, let me say it again, NOTHING to do with what my position was on the subject, I WAS CORRECTING BUSHIDOMARTIALARTS on his assumption that NO ONE WAS SAYING THAT IMMIGRATION WASN'T CRIMINAL.

Hold on... I'm gonna say it for you ONE MORE TIME...

No I'm not... it, and you... are not worth anymore of my time.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 15, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I have a question: For those of you stating that illegal immigration is not wrong, then why "force" those same illegals to become citizens, or offer a path to citizenship (a la Bush).


Force? 



> If you think about it, for illegal immigrants to become citizen's would only hurt them. They would then have to pay taxes. Although they make less than the minimum wage, this is somewhat made up for by the fact that they don't have to pay a minimum marginal tax rate of about 15% if they earn over $7,550.


 
They actually do have to pay some taxes as it is. 



> The only "good" thing about illegal immigration is that they cut down on the price of goods and services in this country. And even that is subject to debate when considering the job losses suffered by American citizens. Not only that, but the lowering of wages given to ALL people due to the influx of workers into a labor pool.


 
Why do you want to stifle the free market?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 15, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> You can't be ****ing serious.
> 
> Oh... wait, I get it... your siggy sums it all up.



That was uncalled for...and sexist.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 15, 2007)

> Force?


 
The current debate here, as I see it, is about whether and to what effect illegal immigrants have on this country, and what should be done about it.

The "pro-illegal" side states that those illegals in this country should be allowed to become citizens.  Their consideration is that if they don't become citizens, they will be considered second-class citizens, denied governmental protections such as minimum wage, health care, driver's license.  In a sence, they want to "force" illegals to become citizens.



> They actually do have to pay some taxes as it is.


 
I won't disregard that *some* illegals pay some sort of taxes.  However, there is a wide disparity between what they pay as illegals, and what they would pay as legal citizens.  And then there is the disparity in what they provide the economy versus what they cost.





> Why do you want to stifle the free market?


 
Who says I want to stifle the free market?  But in order to stifle one, you have to have one first.  I would argue that we do not, in fact, live in a free market society, much as we would like to claim that we do.  We have too much government regulation to have one.


----------



## Amazon (Feb 16, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> You can't be ****ing serious.
> 
> Oh... wait, I get it... your siggy sums it all up.
> 
> ...



It's not my fault if you can't express yourself in a way that makes you understood.  Perhaps you should better phrase yourself - because your post had a very clear meaning - and it isn't what you are saying here.  If it isn't what you meant then maybe you need to read your posts a little more carefully.

You are the one that asked me to quote you and so I did.  I have made my point in half as many lines as you have, with no emotional outbursts, personal insults, or sexist implications.  Having self-important tantrums is only a detriment.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 16, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please return to a polite, respectful tone and posting manner.  Read the rules  *__*and feel free to use the Ignore featurer found on each user's profile.
G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assistant Administrator*_


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 16, 2007)

Yes mom.  I'm sorry.

​


----------



## Marginal (Feb 16, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The current debate here, as I see it, is about whether and to what effect illegal immigrants have on this country, and what should be done about it.
> 
> The "pro-illegal" side states that those illegals in this country should be allowed to become citizens. Their consideration is that if they don't become citizens, they will be considered second-class citizens, denied governmental protections such as minimum wage, health care, driver's license. In a sence, they want to "force" illegals to become citizens.


 
It's a fairly limited sense as far as senses go. Most illegal immigrants would prefer to be able to come and work without having to worry about immigration officials, paying coyotes etc. 



> Who says I want to stifle the free market? But in order to stifle one, you have to have one first. I would argue that we do not, in fact, live in a free market society, much as we would like to claim that we do. We have too much government regulation to have one.


 
I can only assume you want to stifle the free market because you are upset by a situation that the market created.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 16, 2007)

Marginal said:


> It's a fairly limited sense as far as senses go. Most illegal immigrants would prefer to be able to come and work without having to worry about immigration officials, paying coyotes etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I can only assume you want to stifle the free market because you are upset by a situation that the market created.


 
Actually, I never said, nor implied, that I was upset.  Please don't make those kind of asumptions.

And the free market did not create this situation.  As I said, we do not have a free market.  We have a heavily regulated market in which the government routinely makes decisions for the market.  For example, look at the regulation of the interest rate by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.  Not exactly a free market.

So, to your point, the free marked did not create this situation.  Government regulation did.  Even if you want to call the government regulation of immigration part of the "free market".


----------



## Marginal (Feb 16, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So, to your point, the free marked did not create this situation. Government regulation did. Even if you want to call the government regulation of immigration part of the "free market".


 
The only reason they have jobs to steal is because people are hiring them to do the work. Given the current administration's free passes they routinely hand out to businesses, regs ont eh books aren't being especially well because of pressure form business. Business dictating the regs, is about as free market as it can get.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 16, 2007)

Marginal said:


> The only reason they have jobs to steal is because people are hiring them to do the work. Given the current administration's free passes they routinely hand out to businesses, regs ont eh books aren't being especially well because of pressure form business. Business dictating the regs, is about as free market as it can get.


 

Personally, I think you are speaking in conspiracy theory gobbly-gook.  Although I do believe that Bush in particular is sucking up to the corporations, overall, I don't believe that to be the case, and I would be interested if you could come up with FACTS to support your claim.

In fact, such things as OSHA requirements, building codes, EPA requirement (especially that one), etc. are pretty much (yes, there are exceptions) being followed.  

When the Federal Reserve dictates interests rates, that's not free market economics.  When car insurance is a requirement, that is not free market.  FDA regulations on drug manufacture and sales is not free market.

In the U.S., we do not have a free market system.  And that includes such things as employment.


----------

