Duluth.Talk

By Michael H. Smith

May 22, 2007 9:20 PM | Link to this

Yes I do. A lady who emigrated from India many years ago when immigration and naturalization wasn’t a cake walk, resents illegal immigration more than I do. With very good reason, she had to earn her citizenship. When I say earn, I mean, EARN!

Not barrowed, bought or stolen.

Now with this atrocity going on in the Senate should it ever become law giving away amnesty and citizenship, I’m going be embarrassed to even look her in the face. At the very least I’ll owe her and many other naturalized citizens I know a very sincere contrite apology for what this country did to them, after having worked so hard in playing by very single rule.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 22, 2007 11:34 PM | Link to this

“Those who are here illegally don’t play by the rules.”, that’s kind of a one-sided statement. How about those who hire them don’t play by the rules, the slumlords that pack single family homes with groups of them don’t play by the rules. It’s the law of supply and demand.

Since we could not get our own out of New Orleans, how do we get rid of 12 million illegals, it can not be done. No department is big enough to handle it.

Since the government on every level will not attack the demand (business), the supply will keep coming. May as well fine them and tax them.

By Michael H. Smith

May 23, 2007 2:20 AM | Link to this

“No department is big enough to handle it.” Bull!

Just like our military isn’t trained to guard borders. Bull!(John McCain’s lying statement.) Maybe we should get out our varmint gun and just shoot him.

Phone calls from Senators like Saxby Chambliss and former Senator Bob Kerry calling off INS ICE agents making raids on illegal alien employers because we need these workers and the next day Americans are lined up at the door applying for the very jobs the illegal aliens were removed from at a Swift meatpacking plant- Americans just won’t do those jobs. Bull!

Parking lots in Lawrenceville filled with loitering illegals into the late afternoon hours waiting for some slim ball contractors to hire them as illegal day labor to evade paying taxes, insurance and unemployment that legitimate employers pay. We need these illegal aliens workers to fill jobs. Bull!

If there were unfilled jobs out there these illegal amigos would not be standing in those parking lots past 7:30 in the morning. We need 600,000 more guest workers a year , plus the 2.5 million legal immigrants a year, on top of the 12 to 20 million amnesty recipients. Bull!

Oh we need to raise the minimum wage, while flooding the labor markets where wages have remind the same and have actually gone down for those workers who were once making the so called killing. Bull!

And when does raised the minimum wage go into effect? First 100 hours, first 100 hours. Bull!

While the people who were truly making the killing are now raking in genocide profits. Then the greedy developer crowd P moans overdeveloped and supports the very means that made it all possible - the over supply of labor - illegal labor! We’re against uncontrolled growth. Bull!

Try to go after landlords renting to illegals… it can’t be done, it’s unconstitutional, so says the ACLU and the anti-American crowd. Then it’s: Why don’t y’all go after them… and when we do the same sorry sacks of crap that say y’all don’t go after them, says we can’t go after them, when we do.

We’re not like those other guys we oppose that old war. And then the WE walk in lock step with the other guy on amnesty, guest worker and fast track Free Trade authority. It’s not going to be B’ness as usual? Bull!

Just two wings on one dirty bird, that’s all it ever was and all it will probably ever be.

What is kind of lop sided is the pile of lies stacked up against the truth that never gets told.

By lola

May 23, 2007 5:57 AM | Link to this

Our elected officials are not satisfying the needs and wants of the people who elected them. Everyone I know wants illegals gone. Call your representatives and tell them to enjoy their position while they can because with the next election they are being replaced!!!!!

By Brian Curtis

May 23, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Follow the money, people. Who profits from a large pool of illegal, undocumented laborers? Corporate interests.

And who writes bills and dictates policy in Washington? Those same corporate interests, of course. Your opinion on this issue simply doesn’t matter.

By jd

May 23, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

I emailed both Isakson and Chambliss…twice. I got no reponse from Isakson at all. I got two responses from Chambliss. Unfortunately, the response was the exact same in both. It tells me that nobody took the time to read my emails.

I am an immigrant that came to this country legally as a child in the 60’s. We had to have a sponsor, a place to live and my dad had to have a job. We’ve always paid taxes and never took a hand-out from the government.

By LT5000

May 23, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

I wrote and email to Saxby Chambliss and Issakson just last week telling them that if they support this bill, I will do whatever I can to get them out of the Senate.

Real Republicans don’t reward criminals. Lindsey Graham and all the rest of them are so politically tone deaf that they think this is a great idea.

What’s the point of passing new immigration laws when the old ones aren’t being enforced. i.e. check immigration status of all people arrested, if you are illegal, ADIOS.

America has enough home grown criminals, we don’t need anymore. Plus, I wouldn’t have to fund their trips to the emergency room and WIC to feed their babies.

By Rick in Lawrenceville

May 23, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

Isakson and Chambliss met with Latino groups about the new immigration bill, but forgot to consult with their taxpaying citizens.

Chambliss at least responds with a form letter to anything with “immigration” in the subject. Isakson doesn’t even do that!

We have latino advocates here in Metro Atlanta saying that latinos will go to the underground economy if they are not legalized…just more evidence that they come from a corrupt and unethical culture and will support the same once in the United States.

For those who pay significant taxes, get ready to support more Democrat sponsored social programs. While some income “re-distribution” can be justified on moral grounds, much of it just perpetuates continuing bad behavior from our poor.

The Republicans who wanted CHEAP LABOR are about to get their just reward as they have been fattened up for the slaughterhouse!

By Bruce Wilcox

May 23, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

Brian’s right corporate interests rule and the opinions of the people are meaningless. The government will not go after the demand (business), so the supply (illegals) will continue.

Do we want more government telling us who we can rent our own property to? It used to be called red-lining and once used against blacks to keep them out of certain neighborhoods, it is any wonder why the ACLU again defended our Constitution.

The military, the only department big enough, can not be used in the United States for policing actions unless you declare Marshell Law. Just want we want, uniformed and armed troops kicking down doors, checking papers and loading people into buses. Hasn’t that been done somewhere before? As far as the banged up National Guard along the boarder, all they can do is watch and build fences, they can not arrest or detain anyone.

No matter how much Lou Dobbs stomps his feet, this is the best bill to come along, the Republicans have been missing in action for years on the issue, even to the unbelievable point of going against the president. It’s either this bill or keep what we have now.

We need more taxes to keep Social Security afloat, it is the law of supply and demand. We may as well tax them, fine them and give them them green card. With the minimum wage going up, the cheap labor will not be as cheap as before.

By crystal

May 23, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

Why don’t we hand out the Z visas to the citizens of Mexico that are IN MEXICO. First come, first serve basis. If the illegals here in the U.S. today want to keep working here, go back to Mexico and get your Z visa, not the corner office. Plenty of people who haven’t hopped over the border yet will not have to be smuggled in and the “work force” will not be decreased.

Oh, and give out the Z visas AFTER you advertise the jobs at a livable wage and then if no takers, employers contact the gov. tell them how many workers they need, give the folks standing in line in MEXICO the jobs.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 23, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Good idea crystal, the problem is changing the bill now. Look how long it took to get this bill to the floor. If they want to change it they can offer up amendments, otherwise it will be bogged down for another five or ten years. The sooner we start taxing them the better off we will be.

By JD

May 23, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

To those who think we should just starting taxing illegal immigrants so we will all be better off - please check your math. The taxes most illegals will pay will not begin to pay for the services to which they will be entitled. As for passing this bill as it is best we can get - how about we enforce the laws already on the books? A final point - remember the illegals granted amnesty in 1986 and the promises made then about enforcement and no more amnesty bills? Those who cannot remember their history are doomed to repeat it.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 23, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

JD my math is just fine, what extra benefits will they enjoy? Lets look at history, we invited, no begged them to come during WWII to work the farms, the program exists today. We attempted immigration reform in the 60’s under LBJ, didn’t work, again in the 80’s under Reagan, didn’t work. We have more now than ever, I gave sound reasons why it can not be enforced, so may as well tax them.

By LJ

May 23, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Bruce Wilcox - “We need more taxes to keep Social Security afloat, it is the law of supply and demand. We may as well tax them, fine them and give them them green card. With the minimum wage going up, the cheap labor will not be as cheap as before.”

I respectfully disagree with the last sentence. When employers employ day labor and pay cash…the “cheap labor” will remain cheap. An employer who pays in cash has no record of what he pays, or that he paid at all.

By LJ

May 23, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

Rick in Lawrenceville: “Isakson and Chambliss met with Latino groups about the new immigration bill, but forgot to consult with their taxpaying citizens.”

Naw, they didn’t “forget to consult with their taxpaying citizens.” They told us what they knew we wanted to hear then promptly reverted to the “real” person after elected into office. This seems to be a disease suffered by every politician in this Country nowadays.

They just don’t care… … .

By LJ

May 23, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

Bruce Wilcox…”JD my math is just fine, what extra benefits will they enjoy? Lets look at history, we invited, no begged them to come during WWII to work the farms, the program exists today. We attempted immigration reform in the 60’s under LBJ, didn’t work, again in the 80’s under Reagan, didn’t work. We have more now than ever, I gave sound reasons why it can not be enforced, so may as well tax them.”

And so…we may as well let all of them stay without going through the system…we may as well just lay down and let them continue to trample us. Hmmm, I believe that is what we are already doing.

It’s the “cannot be enforced so we may as well tax them” people who are just rolling over and saying “Uncle”. They are branding the American Citizen weak and too ignorant to realize that that is nothing more than a defeatist attitude.

Perhaps they are right………

Thank God we didn’t think that way during WWII when Hitler (no I am NOT comparing anyone to Hitler) was practicing genocide (gee, I hope that teacher who refuses to include the Holocaust in her history class because it might “offend” someone isn’t reading this)!

Bruce W. “Brian’s right corporate interests rule and the opinions of the people are meaningless.”

Right, right…right. The only reason the opinions of the people are meaningless (as I see it) is because “the people” are too busy worrying about their next toy. Am I wrong? Okay, then answer me this… if given a choice between the two following situations, which one do you think the average citizen would fight to exhaustion for:

or

Sadly, thanks to the defeatists amongst us…it’s a “no brainer”.

By JD

May 23, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

Here are the benefits to which I refer:

In reality, the present welfare system is designed primarily to provide financial support to low-income working families. Moreover, welfare is only a modest part of the overall system of financial redistribution operated by the gov­ernment. Current government policies provide extensive free or heavily subsidized aid to low-skill families (both immigrant and non-immigrant) through welfare, Social Security, Medicare, public education, and many other ser­vices. At the same time, government requires these families to pay little in taxes. This very expensive assistance to the least advantaged American families has become accepted as our mutual responsibility for one another, but it is fis­cally unsustainable to apply this system of lavish income redistribution to an inflow of millions of poorly educated immigrants.

My source is: http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/SR14es.cfm

By LJ

May 23, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

Perhaps it’s time for the LEGAL immigrants to step forward and find their collective voice.

It’s apparent the citizens are either refusing to, or incapable of, speaking up for their Country of birth. I should think those who came here legally should have a big say in what’s going on. After all, while we were fortunate enough to be born here, they had to WORK to become legal citizens, right up to the point of actually having to learn the language.

What a novel idea.

By LJ

May 23, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

JD…”Current government policies provide extensive free or heavily subsidized aid to low-skill families (both immigrant and non-immigrant) through welfare, Social Security,…”

Social Security was never intended to be used by the government as their own personal bank account or as an extension of welfare…or for “a bridge that goes nowhere”. How in the world can we allow them to expect us to swallow that one????? Funding for a BRIDGE coming out of SOCIAL SECURITY???

And they are touting that Social Security is/will be bankrupt in the near future. Ever wonder why? Senior citizens have nothing to do with it, well…some of our senior citizen politicians certainly do…but not the average senior citizen.

We ARE ignorant…we truly are!

We should all be just as adamant about the blatant abuse the government is exacting on the Social Security system as we are about illegal aliens.

How easily we swallow the garbage about Social Security that we are being handed. Oh WAIT! Talk to ya later…The Simpsons is on, gotta go…just CAN’T miss that show!

DUH!

By Bruce Wilcox

May 23, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

LJ “When employers employ day labor and pay cash…the “cheap labor” will remain cheap. An employer who pays in cash has no record of what he pays, or that he paid at all.” True, but if an illegal wants to keep his Green Card he will not work under the table. He’ll have to file a tax return, if he doesn’t show any income then his Green Card comes back. The employer, well it is not enforced now, I don’t expect it to in the future.

A “defeatist attitude”, hardly, more of a realist, the problem has been going on for so long there is no way to bring it back to a reasonable level.

JD checking out your link, will get back to you.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 23, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

The article says 60% are legal and 40% are illegal, remove the 40% illegal you end up with 100% legal. The figures will not change. Again we leave employers out of it, Wal-mart is the biggest employer of low skilled workers and a drain on local social assistance programs. Congress. as part of the Iraq plan, will be raising the minimum wage, it will ease the problem some.

Most of services mentioned, except for S.S. and Medicare, come from property taxes, those are already being paid.

As far as Social Security, you can only receive a percentage of what you put in. If someone starts paying into it a fifty they will not receive top dollar.

On the whole welfare is small cost when compared to our military budget.

By Akagi

May 23, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

You don’t have to deport anyone.

All you have to do is have draconian punishment for anyone that hires an illegal—this would include large fines for the first offense—say $100,000 per illegal and for a second offense forfeiture of assets and prison.

This would also make it necessary to produce a true national ID card as well as a biometrically based alien registration card and alien workers card for non-US citizens to prevent document fraud.

Japan and Taiwan for example don’t have a huge illegal alien problem—because unlike the US, these countries actually enforce their immigration laws.

I find it odd that our senators support a bill that will legalize 12 million criminals and at the same time make it harder for relatives—e.g. spouses, brothers, sisters, etc—of US citizens to legally immigrate to the US. So Chambliss and Isakson want to reward criminals and punish relatives of US citizens they have followed the law. How nice.

Well, I’ll vote for the second coming of Mao Ze Dong before I’d vote for either of these losers.

And don’t bother to call or write these sellouts, they don’t care what you think and are betting on you forgetting about their treason when they have to come back and ask you for your vote. Hopefully, the people of Georgia will remember and send both on a permanent vacation.

Little Johnny doesn’t even bother to write back. I guess he thinks he is too good to reply to those he actually works for.

By sam

May 23, 2007 7:26 PM | Link to this

EVERYONE NEEDS TO CALLL< WRITE AND HARASS YOUR REP AND SENATORS> this is a travesty how they are sworn to uphold the law of the land and represent the taxpayers/citizens and they are MORE interested in being fair to ILLEGALs.

WE have to do something NOW before it is too late. please please spend 30 min. doing this. they are traitors.

By dw

May 23, 2007 7:49 PM | Link to this

I have read all of the above. NO one has mentioned the fact that MEXICO needs to take responsibility for their OWN country, and their OWN people. WHY is this OUR problem???? WHY don’t they enforce border patrol?? Our neighbors to the north do. Why don’t they take a look at their sorry corrupt government and find out why their people don’t want to live there? They do the work that no one else wants to do??? BULL CRAP!! They have taken over the unskilled labor jobs that were once done by decent hard working AMERICANS like my parents who did not have an opportunity for college, but were honest and hard working none the less, my mother was waitress and my father worked in a cotton mill. And I assure you, we were never on welfare! Take a good look at the drug problems and crime in our country. The young people that once were glad to take the unskilled labor jobs, are now standing on a street corner selling drugs or their asses. WAKE UP WASHINGTON!!! WAKE UP AMERICA!! WE HAVE TO COME TOGETHER AS AMERICANS! This is OUR country. If the illegals want to be citizens, I say, let them be citizens, give them a gun and send them to fight BUSH’s grudge match in the middle east!!

By dw

May 23, 2007 7:50 PM | Link to this

I have read all of the above. NO one has mentioned the fact that MEXICO needs to take responsibility for their OWN country, and their OWN people. WHY is this OUR problem???? WHY don’t they enforce border patrol?? Our neighbors to the north do. Why don’t they take a look at their sorry corrupt government and find out why their people don’t want to live there? They do the work that no one else wants to do??? BULL CRAP!! They have taken over the unskilled labor jobs that were once done by decent hard working AMERICANS like my parents who did not have an opportunity for college, but were honest and hard working none the less, my mother was waitress and my father worked in a cotton mill. And I assure you, we were never on welfare! Take a good look at the drug problems and crime in our country. The young people that once were glad to take the unskilled labor jobs, are now standing on a street corner selling drugs or their asses. WAKE UP WASHINGTON!!! WAKE UP AMERICA!! WE HAVE TO COME TOGETHER AS AMERICANS! This is OUR country. If the illegals want to be citizens, I say, let them be citizens, give them a gun and send them to fight BUSH’s grudge match in the middle east!!

By Michael H. Smith

May 23, 2007 10:46 PM | Link to this

The military, the only department big enough, can not be used in the United States for policing actions unless you declare Marshell Law.

Wrong!

Just want we want, uniformed and armed troops kicking down doors, checking papers and loading people into buses. Hasn’t that been done somewhere before?

Wrong again.

First this is the worst bill to ever come along no matter how much Mike King and Cynthia Tucker try to rationalize amnesty for illegal alien and worker programs, or no matter how much senator Kennedy bellows our lie afta lie afta lie, time afta time afta time, day afta day afta day afta day, lie afta lie afta lie afta lie, again, again, and uh, again.

Onto the falsehoods, the military has been used several times to police civil disorders within the country. Go check the facts. And Bush would not have to declare Marshal Law to engage our military on our border.

Another vain attempt from the extremist’s corner to exaggerate some delusional fixations to deride what has been proposed from amnesty opponents: What amnesty opponents have said all along is basically this: enforce the current laws, allow local law enforcement to assist I.C.E. in enforcing immigration laws and deportations, take away all government assistance, excluding only humanitarian aid and reduce or maintain current legal flows of immigrations.

What a few such as yours truly advocates in addtion (and of course Lou Dobbs only to some extent - Go Lou) is to pressure the Mexican Government into make socio-economic reforms. Unfortunately, the very things yours truly has advocated for in the way of Mexico making socio-economic reforms is in this piece of treason called a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Unfortunate, because, instead of Mexico’s ruling elites picking up the cost paying for my suggestions these loony tunes Democrats and Republicans alike who crafted this amnesty atrocity will have U.S. taxpayers footing the costs and paying for making these socio-economic reforms in Mexico: creating better paying jobs, improving education, improving healthcare and making loans to the Mexican people.

The more that comes out on this so-called comprehensive bill the worse it looks and becomes obvious that it is unworkable. Notwithstanding, as yours truly has said before, we have absolutely no reason to believe a single word of what this Congress has promised to do on enforcement. Now that is a proven fact, their failure to enforce the laws has been the problem all along.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 24, 2007 12:21 AM | Link to this

Very few times has the military been called out, the Draft Riots of New York, during strikes of the railroads and mining unions and to escort black children to school. Very targeted incidents that can be counted on one hand.

You’re correct Bush would not have to declare Marshal Law along the boarder, he could declare war. Why the National Guard is not arresting anyone should give you a hint?

To handle the illegal problem, it would have to be Marshal Law because it is spread across the country. Uniformed and armed troops kicking down doors, checking papers and loading people into buses is the only way it could be done or would you rap lightly and ask nicely if any illegals were about? It has been tried before, in Germany during the late 30’s.

Right now we can detain at best 19,000 illegals, I do not think that makes much of a dent in the 12 million. Local police will assist ICE agents? We do not have enough police to handle our local problems, add to that the very limited number of agents, it’s a sounds good solution and that is all it is. “Take away all government assistance”, they’re still better off than they were in South America, again no solution there. How about a 700 mile fence along an 1800 mile boarder, boy that will stop them.

All these feel good solutions that will not work, deporting millions, anyone figure out the cost or do we charge it like the war? The Bill has two weeks of debates and amendments yet, wait till we see the finished product.

As far as the clerk from Bangladesh, I think he is a little selfish, he made it to the lifeboat, everyone else can drown.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 24, 2007 12:47 AM | Link to this

Mr. Smith I checked the facts as you suggested, In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

By Bubba

May 24, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Just out of curiosity, why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to feed the Mexican poor? Did you ever think that 12 million illegals could create enough power to transform their own government? No. Because it’s easier to spend your (and my) tax money to give them something that they didn’t earn instead of them fighting for themselves.

Good thing Bruce doesn’t navigate the lifeboat. Only people who can walk across the border are welcome, yes? Heaven forbid that he should take a boat across the ocean and actually register for a visa and a green card. If you can walk across the border, you don’t have to play by the rules. Bruce for president!

By jd

May 24, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

The reason Mexico doesn’t do anything is because the people that are leaving are not wanted there. These are the criminals, the leaches and those that have no respect for their country, its economy and environment. They have no interest in making their country better because its easier to come here and take our handouts, abuse our system and break our laws.

If all of our criminals in this country wanted to move to another country, would we make it better so they would want to stay here? I don’t think so.

There are so many people that get worked up about this mess. Why don’t we ban together and fight back? It’s obvious our elected officials aren’t fighting for us. Does anyone know of a group in Gwinnett County? I’m willing to join in and make some noise. We need to be louder than them and make sure the politicians know that the VOTERS will not be conned.

By crystal

May 24, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

Bruce - you can be here illegally AND have a green card? I thought you had to be here legally to have a green card and then be in the withholding status? I doubt the people hanging out on the corners waiting for day labor are having their taxes taken out and are still able to go to the emergency room if they get hurt on the job. The employer doesn’t have to pay their taxes either. Sounds good for them, again the only ones getting a good deal are the businessess and contractors. They are not passing the savings down the line, but keeping it in their pockets. They are selling out their country as well. I also doubt the ‘legal’ ones pay enough in taxes to cover the $32.2 million dollars (reported in the AJC a couple of months ago) to cover the ESOL program in Gwinnett county alone. That doesn’t cover free lunch, schools, hospitals, law enforcement, etc. Again, taht is $32.2 MILLION just for ESOL, yep, sounds like CHEAP labor to me.

If I broke into your house, cleaned it, mowed your lawn and cooked your dinner, would that mean you would have to let me stay?

With the passing of the current bill as it stands, we will inherit 12 million new people who live below the poverty line. That means they will automatically be entitled to every tax break and government funded program along side native born and immigrants who took the long, LEGAL, path to stay here. Sounds fair to me.

I am all for everyone having a better life, but don’t “rape” me and my children in the process. Don’t raise my property taxes and health insurance and preach about not paying 0.20 cents more for a pound of tomatoes.

Why is it that America is the only one ever expected to play fair? CITIZENS from other countries ILLEGALLY enter the country and then start DEMANDING THEIR rights?!? I think the United States of America should be able to determine, who, where, and how many come to this country, not citizens from another country. It is not their right to come here. People want to talk about Americans and their entitlement mentality, what do you call this?

They think they are entitled to come here? And why, because they work hard? The only hardship facing them is unemployment. They love their country enough to fly their flags and demand their rights here but not enough to fight for it and a livelihood there.

How about the folks in DARFUR that are being slaughtered by the millions. How about sending a boat over and picking up 12 million of them. Let’s give them a turn at the American dream. I bet they would be ecstatic and appreciative of getting out of their terrible country.

Why are the only ones south of the border worthy of a better life?

By Michael R

May 24, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Crystal - the day-laborers/green card comment was talking about labor if this current bill passed.

There are currently reports that our military is struggling to fight the war in Iraq. If another conflict were to break out, we probably would not have enough troops to send there. So where exactly are the troops to pick up all 12 million illegals going to come from? Are you saying pull out of Iraq, too?

Once you’ve got all the troops home, you still have to pay the same bill (what is it, $4bn a month?) to pay all their salaries, plus all the buses, planes, computers and logistics equipment it will take to track down, round up and then deport all the illegals. We’ve already got tons of them in detention facilities going nowhere.

jd said these were the criminals coming into our country. If all the criminals were leaving Mexico, wouldn’t you imagine that country would be a paradise? On the contrary there is so much corruption there that the economy can’t function and people can’t get jobs and so they come here.

There is no doubt that some illegals won’t want to leave and might flee or resist your proposed round-up. Then you might have an actual war on your home turf. How does that sound? Would you like a possible 300 extra criminals roaming Atlanta and its suburbs, with soldiers in trucks driving around looking for them? How soon after that do you suppose there’s going to be friendly fire incidents?

No one is saying it’s perfect. A convincing article I read today said even if it passes, it probably won’t work. Maybe if we cut off ALL the money for Iraq and put it into immigration and hired millions more people - maybe, but no guarantees.

If you want them gone, you have to think practically about how you’re going to do it - how will you take them, how will you transport them and how much will it cost and how much are you willing to pay?

By Akagi

May 24, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Michael:

As I said before, you would have to deport very few of them. All you have to do is to dry up the jobs that attract them. You do this by draconian-level punishments for businesses that hire them. First offense would be large fines and future offenses would lead to the seizure of assets and jail for those that did the hiring.

The real problem I have with this bill is the treatment of naturalized US citizens. It legalizes 12 million (or 15 million or 20 million) criminals—those that broke US law by crossing the border illegally, staying here illegally, working here illegally, driving here illegally, etc etc.—and will now punish US citizens. Siblings of US citizens will no longer be allowed to immigrate to the US based on their family-relationship. And the numbers of parents of adult US citizen children allowed to immigrate will be greatly reduced.

There is also no guarantee that those siblings of US citizens who have been waiting less than two-years will ever be allowed to immigrate. Is this fair? I thought the GOP that supports this idiotic bill supported family values.

If this bill passes, I will no longer consider myself an American citizen, because if it does, this country has abandoned me, not the other way around.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 24, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

The guest worker program has already been cut in half, from 400,000 to 200,000. All it took was an amendment fron Rep, Bragnman (D) New Mexico. Turn on C-Span and watch the debate.

As far as doing it nice and proper, if I was standing on the border broke with my family starving and a guy is waving mucho money at me from the other side telling me he won’t tell anyone, I’d have to be a fool not to cross the boarder.

“If I broke into your house, cleaned it, mowed your lawn and cooked your dinner, would that mean you would have to let me stay?”, worked for my last two wifes!

By Michael R

May 24, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Michael R

Thanks for answering for Bruce.

Bruce - I like the two wives comment, LOL.

So I guess basically we are just suppose to sit back and let everyone except the citizens of this country dictate what law will be followed here. Great country to live in as long as you are not born here I guess. None of the illegals have followed our laws, what the hell makes you think they are going to start once the immigration bill passes. AND, why does everyone say how are you going to get rid of 12 million illegals? Well, they didn’t get here in one day or even one decade, why do they have to leave in one day. Stop spending money on ESOL and buy them bus tickets to leave. Once they are there, apply for Z visa and re-enter. Why are we not allowed to ask, let alone DEMAND, that if they want to continue working here, leave first, and come back in the right way. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the U.S. that wouldn’t allow anyone back in to work as LONG AS THEY LEFT AND THEN CAME BACK LEGALLY instead of letting them getting away with breaking the law and letting them stay. They only have to leave and pay the fine if they want to become citizens.

By jd

May 24, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

I didn’t say that all the criminals were leaving, but as soon as they cross the border into this country illegally are instant criminals. Then they drive without licenses, insurance, registration, work under the table so they don’t pay taxes, scam the government out of public assistance that is meant for our own citizens. Pick your crime…in my opinion they are all criminals and should be treated as such.

Why don’t we give them 12 months to leave on their own. If they’re still here, we will cut off any funding they get and help them find their way home. Is it really that much more to pay for their transportation back home than it would be to educate their young, house them in our jails or provide health care and education?

I’m fed up with their marches and demands to be treated fairly. The more we give them, the more is taken from the citizens of this country. If they don’t like it, let them apply for citizenship and try and change our laws. See how much support they get from those of us that have worked and paid taxes so they could live the American dream.

By Michael H. Smith

May 24, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992 when it was requested by California Gov. Pete Wilson after the outbreak of race riots in Los Angeles. President George H.W. Bush dispatched about 4,000 soldiers and Marines.

Go back and check your fuzzy facts one more time Mr. Wilcox.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

By Michael H. Smith

May 24, 2007 6:15 PM | Link to this

What gives me a hint about why the National Guard is not arresting anyone is because under Bush, arrests for illegal immigration as a whole have gone down to nearly nothing, even by INS ICE.

Now you make the preposterous claim it would be necessary to declare war! You, Mr. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq… is Iraq a declared war?

Also beyond my note on the invoking the Insurrection Act in lieu of declaring the unnecessary Marshal Law to use the military Article 4 Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. We do not or would not have to declare the War Act to have our Military secure our borders from an invasion. Please note no requirement that an invasion must be an armed invasion.

You know it has often been said when in debate someone reaches to use the Nazi argument it means they have absolutely nothing else to offer in defense of the worthless position they have taken. Show me the ovens Mr. Wilcox? Show me the gas chambers Mr. Wilcox? Come on now it is your claim that America is like Nazi Germany. Where are all the women with shaved heads? Where are all the toothless victims missing their gold fillings and teeth? Where are the labor camps filled with emaciated bodies waiting to kill-over and die from disease, starvation and forced labor worked 24 hours a day?

No Mr. Wilcox it will not take storm-troopers to enforce the laws across this country or in fact using the military. If every police department in this country participated in assisting ICE with immigration and deportation as they are permitted now to do under our present “settled law” with all the other necessary parts in play, it would not take long for the illegal aliens in this country to figure out they will eventually be caught and deported. With that thought firmly planted in their minds it would not take long for them to simply give up and leave on their own and return home.

As for necessary detention space for the illegal aliens who just will not return and force this country to round them all up then just give Sherriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona a blank check from the Treasury Department and all the southwest desert he needs. The only problem he’ll have is importing enough pink underwear from China!
Oh yeah, that will include all the employers who just don’t get it or refuse to stop hiring illegal aliens and all other aid and abettors who don’t comply Sherriff Arpaio can make room for them too.

How about that 700 miles of fence which has now been cut down to around 300 miles of fence with those Z visa amnesties and guest workers visa leaving a hole large enough to drive a motor grader through sideways? As Senata Teddy Boy Kennedy says: Lie afta lie afta lie, time afta time afta time, year afta year afta year, lie afta lie afta lie, month afta month afta month, time afta time afta time, lie afta lie afta lie, day afta day afta day… again, again and uh, again, our borders and ports have never been secured as promised by our government. Don’t lose any sleep thinking for one minute this Congress intends to really secure our borders.

The finished product my backsides, this product was finished from day one and it should have been DOA before it ever left the back room dealings of that odious closed door committee.

PS. Hope you’re moving to Maricopa County.

By crystal

May 24, 2007 7:58 PM | Link to this

Good comments Michael H Smith.

I too don’t understand when people say, “Well what do we do with the 12 million that are already here?” As far as I am concerned (and a lot of other U.S. citizens) how about telling them “YOU HAVE TO LEAVE!!!” If you can’t enforce something like that how are you going to enforce making them “come out of the shadows” for their amnesty visas. Why is it our responsibility to come up with something to do with them? They are grown adults that understood what they are doing. I have seen plenty of televsion coverage of refugees fleeing their war torn countries walking to leave their country. I guess the illegals are too good to stand up EVER and do the right thing.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 24, 2007 8:03 PM | Link to this

Now, now Mr. Smith you’re getting all excited again, I said you can count the number of times it was used on one hand. We used it against our own veterans the WWI Bonus Marchers in 1932, President Harry S. Truman’s use of federal troops against striking railroad workers in 1946, our own Native People the 1973 intervention of federal troops against the American Indian Movement at Wounded Knee, and the suppression of the Los Angeles rebellion in 1992. Now I don’t know how many digits you have on your hand, but I can count them on one hand. But I think they may have missed Ike sending troops into Little Rock.

The Nazi argument, well if you use the military to round up illegals it is a just argument. Now you backed off to local police helping ICE asking illegals nicely if they’ll go back. No we don’t have ovens, but we do have Abu Ghraib, we have an off-shore prison camp to beat the American Justice system at Guantanamo, Cuba and secret torture prisons around the world. We invaded a country illegally and under false pretenses killing thousands to get one man, not the one who attacked us, bin Laden, but Saddam. We forced Iraq into a Civil War and there is no end in site. We have lost 3,400 soldiers in the Iraqi invasion and you have the nerve to call unarmed illegals trying to better their lives an invasion worthy of calling out the troops, you should be ashamed.

Teddy K and Johnny McCain are just doing what Georgie Bush wants Mr. Smith. At least the Democrats have the backbone to tackle the issue that Republicans ran from for years and that is one of the major reasons it is as bad as it is now.

You, Lou and many others can lay out their grand plans, but we’ve heard them all before and the problem is still growing, now it’s time to act.

By Michael H. Smith

May 24, 2007 10:26 PM | Link to this

No, no Mr. Wilcox that is not your original statement. I’m not going to let you off the hook on this one.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 23, 2007 9:38 AM

The military, the only department big enough, can not be used in the United States for policing actions unless you declare Marshell Law.

Now be nice and say uncle to me and Lou ;)

Read my last comment again there is no backing off or amnesty in it.

>

No Mr. Wilcox it will not take storm-troopers to enforce the laws across this country or in fact using the military. If every police department in this country participated in assisting ICE with immigration and deportation as they are permitted now to do under our present “settled law” with all the other necessary parts in play, it would not take long for the illegal aliens in this country to figure out they will eventually be caught and deported. With that thought firmly planted in their minds it would not take long for them to simply give up and leave on their own and return home.

As for necessary detention space for the illegal aliens who just will not return and force this country to round them all up then just give Sherriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona a blank check from the Treasury Department and all the southwest desert he needs. The only problem he’ll have is importing enough pink underwear from China!

Oh yeah, that will include all the employers who just don’t get it or refuse to stop hiring illegal aliens and all other aid and abettors who don’t comply Sherriff Arpaio can make room for them too.

>

Deportation is not asking politely, and once real enforcement efforts starts it will not take long for the lucky uncaught illegal aliens to take advantage of that compassion hint before their luck runs out.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 25, 2007 1:23 AM | Link to this

Tsk, tsk, Mr. Smith, a little creative editing?

By Michael H. Smith May 23, 2007 2:20 AM | Link to this

“No department is big enough to handle it.” Bull!

Just like our military isn’t trained to guard borders. Bull!(John McCain’s lying statement.) Maybe we should get out our varmint gun and just shoot him.

By Michael H. Smith May 23, 2007 10:46 PM

“Onto the falsehoods, the military has been used several times to police civil disorders within the country. Go check the facts. And Bush would not have to declare Marshal Law to engage our military on our border.

By Bruce Wilcox May 24, 2007 12:21 AM | Link to this

Very few times has the military been called out, the Draft Riots of New York, during strikes of the railroads and mining unions and to escort black children to school. Very targeted incidents that can be counted on one hand.

Now go back and read the statements I made, the military is the only department big enough. We couldn’t save our own from Katrina and it took days to even get help to them. Now you want to remove 12 million illegals by the local police and ICE, yeah that will work, as well as the fence. Better yet, why hasn’t or why isn’t it being done now?

If you check I said Marshal Law would have to be declared because it is so widespread, not just the boarders.

You want to tie up the local police for hours booking in illegals leaving us, the citizens to fend for ourselves. The county jail isn’t big enough, so you would put them in tents and make them wear pink underwear? Then you’ll have to get buses to deport all, you may as well leave them running because, like now, they’ll be back.

And what is the cost of the buses and drivers? The cost of every county setting up tent farms? The cost of increased crime because our local police are Jr. ICEmen?

Nothing new Mr. Smith, you offer nothing new.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 25, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Interesting new report…Among the report’s findings:

Apprehensions on the Southwest border have declined by 350,000 per year, almost 30 percent from the Clinton years.

The number of deportable aliens found at the northern border and border locations other than the Southwest has dropped by almost 40 percent.

Although the number of immigration-related arrests at the workplace has risen each year since 2003, 84 percent of those are workers rather than employers.

There is no realistic chance of solving the immigration crisis without a comprehensive new immigration policy, the report concludes.

Third Way official: “Decline in immigration enforcement has been steady” • Centrist group: Arrests, deportations down almost 30 percent since Clinton years • Study says it would take 100-plus years to deport all illegal immigrants in U.S. • Report: Enforcement efforts target immigrants but fail to punish employers

From CNN

By Michael H. Smith

May 25, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

All you ever offer is crap Mr. Wilcox. Is dumb a proclivity with you are did you major in stupidity? You go back and check your first statement after I nailed you on either ignorance of the facts or an out right lie, before you went to flip flopping like a fish out of water trying to weasel out of mis-speaking like a rug - wall to wall. (the time stamps cannot be denied which came first and after)You were wrong then just like you have been more wrong than right on most things. Including on this so-called attempt to fix immigration.

This new treasonous garbage is worse than the last pig with lipstick. Again no one seems to understand that revenue raising bills have to originate in the House not the Senate. Everything that has anything to do with enforcement that I’ve seen or read about in this bill has a waiver attached to it washing out the penalties. Real enforcement is what has been missing in all of this immigration policy for years, instead of the half @$$ enforcement that has been used or none at all, as under George Bush. Real enforcement will go after “all parties involved” in the illegality: the aliens , the employers and any that aid or abet both.

Your Democrats are trying to fix just like the Republicans, in breaking or abolishing things altogether. See problem fixed, all immigration is legal , there is no such thing as illegal anymore.

Wow what an answer, if you refuse to enforce the law, just erase the law and make the crime legal, that will stop illegality. Border what border? Sovereignty, what sovereignty? See we’ve fixed it!

Get a grip and face the facts, no make that reality. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are looking out for the interests of the average U.S. American citizen. We can’t afford K street lobbyists like Businesses and multi-national Corporations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Round Table, the Home Builders of America and the rest that could go on, on, in a list. Therefore we no longer have a voice in our government.

For whatever a vote will bring you can bet on this Mr. Wilcox I’m looking for a new third party to emerge after this immigration bill.

By Michael H. Smith

May 25, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

Link to that report:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/25/immigration.enforcement.ap/index.html

Only proves what I’ve said all along there is no real enforcement. A 100 years to deport all illegal aliens, who is kidding who. After amnesty? Deportation what deportation, illegal doesn’t exists anymore and neither does your country.

So get over it!

By Bruce Wilcox

May 25, 2007 8:38 PM | Link to this

Mr. Smith I do not have to resort to childish insults or twist facts. A lot of people confuse the Insurrection Act with Marshal Law as you have. The Insurrection Act has been used five times in very targeted and limited incidents. I stated that to use the military to control illegals they would have to declare Marshal Law because the problem is so widespread. I also stated correctly that the military is not allowed to be used for policing in the United States under the Posse Comitatus Act. You’re fonfusing the two intentionally to mislead or out of ignorance.

As a nation the majority see the need and support immigration reform. There will be at least two more weeks of debate on the Bill, the reality is you have no idea of what you’re talking about but you’ll condem it anyway.

You just want to sit on your hands and complain on how they should have done this or they should have done that. As the Republicans have for so many years now, if you do not do anything maybe the problem will go away.

By Michael H. Smith

May 26, 2007 2:43 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wilcox resorting to childish insults is your trademark along with crass innuendo as stock in blog trade. Your assertion is like a skunk complaining about someone having sprayed perfume in its’ domain.

I have confused what? No, no, Mr. Wilcox, I have not confused anything as such.

How about reading something from someone who probably knows just a little more than you and I put together on this subject.

Senator Patrick Leahy:

The Insurrection Act governs when the President can declare a form of martial law. When the act is invoked, the military, including the National Guard, can carry out law enforcement functions without the consent of a Governor. Posse comitatus, a broad law that generally prevents the military from policing within the domestic United States, does not apply when the act is invoked.

1) Until the “Insurrection Act Rider” was enacted in the fall of 2006, U.S. law focused on enabling the President to invoke the Insurrection Act during violent situations where the states or local communities were resisting lawful orders. The intent of the law, as the title suggests, was to deal with insurrection from individuals or groups. The law was not designed to address other situations, including natural disasters, or attacks from outside the country.

In its original form, the Act has been invoked sparingly — only ten times in the past five decades. Over the past 40 years, the act has only been invoked with the consent of the governors, using authorities under other sections of the U.S. Code that allow states to invite in federal military forces for police functions.

Under the new language, added to the law in the fall of 2006, the President can invoke the act and declare martial law in cases where public order breaks down as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, terrorist attack, or under the nebulous term of “other conditions.”

2) This change makes it easier for the President to invoke the Act in cases beyond an insurrection – cases which were not intended under the previous purpose of the Act. With these succinct but sweeping changes, the President now does not have to contact or collaborate with any state agency in taking control of the Guard and injecting federal military forces, to carry out patrols or make arrests. The President has to notify but not explain to Congress that he or she believes that states cannot handle the situation.

The change goes against practical and historical arrangements for handling emergencies, which constitutionally and practically have been headed and handled by governors and local officials. When operating under a governor in a state status, the National Guard is not bound by posse comitatus and can integrate seamlessly with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and first responders.

The governors, adjutants general and local law enforcement officers were not consulted about these far-reaching Insurrection Act changes. They are united in strongly asserting that the time-tested system for using the National Guard in emergencies and requesting federal assistance — “when necessary” — works well and should not be changed.

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/InsurrectionAct/index.html

Now why did Senator Leahy say a form of martial law and not just call it Martial Law, if the Act truly is Martial Law? Confused, no I don’t think so Mr. Wilcox. Perhaps this has been a learning experience for your ignorance or intent as to how very targeted, and limited incidents are now under the Insurrection Act. You might also want to improve your counting of times the Act has been used rather out of ignorance or intent to mislead. The George W. Bush Insurrection Act is not his father’s Martial Law anymore - note 1), and 2). It goes beyond cases of insurrection, does what the law was not designed to address other situations, including natural disasters, or attacks from outside the country, so says Senator Leahy.

Nothing new in a proud member of the pro illegal alien amnesty open borders crowd, who grab for anything to say borders can’t be secured using the military. That’s why I jumped on that Martial Law comment originally. Which gives credibility to a previous statement I made that George W. Bush could secure the border in 48 hours if he want to and set the rules of engagement.

The nation sure does want real immigration reform and on that point you are clueless as to what that means. The country is not pro illegal alien amnesty and for very good reason. Bush can say it’s not amnesty all day long if he wants to, though anytime the lawbreakers is able to obtain the desired reward from their crime all penalties are negated, as in this case being able to reside in this country. And touch back is a joke. Stay back with no waivers and having to get into the back of the line behind their fellow countrymen and wait their turn to re-enter legally is more like a penalty, and all illegal aliens not just a head of household should have to return to obtain legal residency.

Needless to say America has heard Congress and a President promise to “enforce laws” on employers, illegal aliens and the aid and abettors before. Most of America has not forgotten the non-enforced “Simpson Mazzoli Act”. America has absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe a single word of what George Bush and Teddy Kennedy have said given our governments past performance as empirical evidence reveals amnesty only produces more illegal immigration when enforcement is ignored.

So you say the Republicans have done nothing to fix the problem and at least the Democrats have? Wrong again, HR 4437 an enforcement only bill was truly a first step towards immigration reform to restore the confidence of betrayed the American people that their government would honor the enforcement laws it writes first before any other immigration reforms could be debated on or enacted. Triggers are a joke.

The problem is too widespread the military is the only department big enough? Wrong again, part of HR 4437 known as the C.L.E.A.R. Act made it possible for local law enforcement to assist I.C.E. in arrest and deportations of illegal aliens. Though that never made it into law, local law enforcement can still assist I.C.E. in arrest and deportations of illegal aliens. A training center is here in Georgia for that very purpose: To train local law enforcement to do that very I.C.E. assisting. Now how widespread are all the police departments in this country, I’d say they cover a lot more ground than the military could ever possibly cover, without necessity of declaring Martial Law or evoking the present hyper extended Insurrection Act . Also the intent of HR 4437 was meant to compel illegal aliens to leave of their own accord rather than, as you love to say: “Round them all up”.

I’ve done everything but set on my hands Mr. Wilcox. All you’ve done in essence is say, and mostly falsely, is what cannot be done in demanding another amnesty.

There might be two more weeks of debate by Congress about this bill, but rest assured debate will continue on this for a long time to come by America and we’ll have a vote on this bill too, in 2008. A safe bet says there will be new faces in Congress on both sides after that event.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 26, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

What part of ‘form’ confuses you Mr. Smith? The Insurrection Act is a ‘form’ of martial law. This little addition is because of Katrina and the Governor refusing to give control of the National Guard. Bush had to send in the military due to the incompetence of of his appointed head of FEMA. Little Rock, the Governor asked Ike to send in Federal troops beause he could trust his own racist National Guard. It is still very limited, as I have repeated many times, many times, for the military to handle immigration on the national level martial law would have to be imposed. Mr. Smith no matter how much you try to twist it or how embarrassed you may be, you can not refute fact.

I explained why using local law enforcement will not work, my property taxes pays for the police. The police I pay for, and Gwinnett is the perfect example, will be too tied up with illegals that they will be unable offer local protection. You again, as you have many times, refuse how your grand plan is paid for?

Bush had/has the National Guard all along the boarder, they can not arrest or detain anyone. Is it not your duty as a citizen to call the president and explain what he can do with the troops?

And Mr. Smith I never offer childish insults, maybe a little satire that goes over your head.

By Michael H. Smith

May 26, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

What part of form don’t you Get Mr. Wilcox. A form is not necessarily the exact object. Martial law and the present Insurrection Act are not one and the same, i.e. six one, half dozen or the other.

And no it is not “very limited” as you said before. You are emphatically wrong on that. If you were right in “very limited” Senator Laehy would not have written this:

With these succinct but sweeping changes, the President now does not have to contact or collaborate with any state agency in taking control of the Guard and injecting federal military forces, to carry out patrols or make arrests. The President has to notify but not explain to Congress that he or she believes that states cannot handle the situation.

Now Mr. Wilcox just say okay so I was wrong, instead of how you continue to twist and distort.

Though I and Senator Leahy normally would not agree on the political time of day about much of anything I share his concerns on these sweeping changes that goes beyond Martial Law. This is not Martial Law we are dealing with, it exceeds what are the former definitions and restraints of Martial Law. I do support his efforts to repeal the override (or rider) to the present Insurrection Act and restore the limitations of “actual Martial Law”. Admittedly, this part scares the H out of me, because accountability is removed:

The President has to notify but “not explain” to Congress that he or she believes that states cannot handle the situation.

That is simply too much power given over to one part of government without explanation to another part of government. We can better deal with natural disasters such as Katrina or under the nebulous term of “other conditions” without using something beyond the scope of Martial Law. Bush reminds me more and more of Roy Barnes in grabbing power for the executive branch of government.

Okay I’ll take on your explanation, point by point:

I explained why using local law enforcement will not work, my property taxes pays for the police.

No your taxes period pays for the local police services, not just your property taxes. Whether money is taken from the left pant pocket or the right pant pocket it is being taken from the scope of one and the same pair of britches.

The police I pay for, and Gwinnett is the perfect example, will be too tied up with illegals that they will be unable offer local protection.

Gwinnett County Police are already too tied up with illegals, though they continue their ability to offer local protections. If the illegals are sent out of this country Gwinnett County Police will not have to deal with them at all. Provided the borders and visa programs are made secure they would nearly never have to deal with again.

You again, as you have many times, refuse how your grand plan is paid for?

The grand plan is already being paid for out of our taxes and other monies. We simply are not receiving the full services we’ve paid for; and should be receiving more revenue for this purpose from collected fines imposed on illegal alien employers, that is if the laws were actually enforced.

And Mr. Smith I never offer childish insults, maybe a little satire that goes over your head.

Yeah right! Whatever you say Mr. Wilcox. More of your childish skunk spray. Next time you decide to hold your polecat convention don’t complain when someone else sprays maybe a “little satire” into your air from their perfume bottle.

By Bruce Wilcox

May 26, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

So you use a purely hypothetical statement from Senator Laehy to defend your position, from a very Libral Yankee Senator I may add, looks like deperation is taking over.

Now a geography lesson, there are forty-eight states in the continental United States or as I have been referring to it, a nation. I have repeatedly stated that to handle the problem with illegals martial law would have to be declared. That would include each of the forty-eights explained in the begining.

Even in the hypothetical, never challenged in any court, the Senator is talking about a state. Again a very targeted area.

Mr. Smith now you’re just making yourself look foolish. Have a nice day:)

By Michael H. Smith

May 26, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

The power of that Act is not hypothetical and until it is challenged it remains in effect. A Liberal Yankee, how about that. Me using one of your very own against you. Neat Huh. Oh, and he is an elitist too.

Mr. Wilcox any silly wag can make a comment like this, even a fool like you.

Mr. Smith now you’re just making yourself look foolish. Have a nice day:)

All doubt has now been removed, you did major in stupidity ;)~

By Monsieur de la Gueronniere

May 29, 2007 12:07 AM | Link to this

Immigration is one topic that will keep up busy while they are looting the treasury. $20 billion dollars in cash flown to Iraq by cargo planes. Planes load of cash people! our money! Then the money is distributed in CASH in Iraq, no paper trails. Now, none of them in Washington can tell the people what happened to the money. This immigration issue is a fake problem. It can handled just right only if we had true representation in Washington. they are in office to serve the interest of the big donors, foreign interest and their lobby. It just so happened that big donors need cheap labor. All of them on the hill are busy catering to other interests. When will the AMERICAN PEOPLE COME FIRST? We are sick and tired of watching planes load of money leaving this country. We are sick and tired of subsidizing other people pathology. We need to elect peope with the backbone to stand up for the people of this country and serve US without giving up to domestic or foreign influences. WE NEED TO RETAKE OUR COUNTRY IN ALL WAYS,SHAPES, AND FORMS. AMERICANS FIRST.