Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > May > 21 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USImmigration: What’s in there?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The immigration bill that came to life behind closed doors moves into the open as U.S. Senate begins what is expected to be five days of open debate on the bill’s particulars.
I’m willing to heed for a few more hours the pleas of Georgia’s two U.S. Senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, that we not lock down on this bill until the details are more fully aired. As the cliche goes, the devil’s always in the details.
My initial reaction is that it is amnesty. It legitimizes the presence of people here illegally. Sure, the head of household has to make a shopping trip back home, but that appears to be no more than a legal charade, since the family remains and he’s guaranteed acceptance, assuming he’s not a known felon.
Border security is a preconditon, of course. But my guess is that, secure or not, a president eager to have a second-term legislative success will certify it as secure on the way out.
The shift from family ties to job skills as a basis for entry has some appeal, but it’s ultimately unworkable. Public opinion won’t sustain the policy once the news media starts profiling the law’s impact on immigrant families.
But given the way the compromise came about, not enough is known about the details to speak with certainty about its provisions. Five days is hardly enough for the public to know what the Senate’s brought forth. The House is expected to act in July. Bush wants to sign it into law by the August recess. It sounds awfully much like a done deal.
Comments
By Dave
May 21, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this
What we need is a series of legislative bills rather than a huge one which can contradict itself or hide gotchas where no one will notice until too late. Its VERY suspicious that they do not want an open debate on this. In my opinion, we should throw out every lawmaker who support this in the next republican primary.
By artc
May 21, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this
I think Michael Chertoff told you bigots all you need to know in his press conference right after the agreement was announced. “They will not be deported. They are here. They aren’t going anywhere”. Deal with it you bunch of redneck klansmen.
By DebbieDoRight
May 21, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this
I seem to be in somewhat agreement with Jim Wooten today, what’s the world coming to when I start agreeing, even remotely with Jim? (sigh)
I would like to know more about this bill; more facts about a subject can generate more intelligent responses. Besides, anything done too hastily is not a good idea; and this thing has the taint of a Used Car Salesman who knows that the engine is getting ready to blow any minute; but has to make his quota and will sell the car to his grandmother if he has to.
By Sandra
May 21, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
Since paying a fine is “amnesty”, I think the next time you racist pigs get nailed on 285 over the speed limit, you need to go straight to jail If fines are amnesty than it applies across the board and we just can’t have that can we all you wannabe Tom Metzgers?
By artc
May 21, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this
Chertoff told you straight up. The alternative is the status quo. And maybe that would be more fun. You bigots keep trying to swim against the tide with your little draconian local laws and the ACLU continues to sue your racist butts into bankruptcy. LMAO!!
By jbmlaw
May 21, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Immigration seems to be the topic of the times, as it ever has been; although Jim Wooten set it as topic only once last week, the blog covered nothing else for three days last week. I am an unapologetic advocate for open borders, which I perceive is a minority position in our country at this time. Our opponents have good faith reasons – those opposed to me are not exclusively racists or xenophobes, but thoughtful people concerned for a myriad of security issues.
I understand the Congressional desire for “fast track” on the legislation, it is highly unpopular for a lot of single-issue voters. An old aphorism is, “if you must do something distasteful, do it quickly.” (Probably comes from Jesus’ instruction to Judas.) “Fast track” is a bad idea in the case of immigration reform, because of abortion.
Abortion is a controversial topic today, 35 years after Roe v Wade, precisely because the public debate on the issue was pretermitted by our betters on the Supreme Court. Instead of allowing our Congressmen and State Legislators to debate the issue, to air all grievances, the idea was ripped from the legislative womb, causing injury to the body politic not yet healed.
Rather than repeat that strategic mistake and unalterably dividing the country again, we need to take it slowly, debate it, and do the right thing. The wrongest thing we could do is pass a bill in haste.
By Redneck Convert
May 21, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this
Well, I see that House guy in charge of the budget got arrested for DUI. Since he’s a Republican he probly just had too much communion wine. Since Republicans don’t commit crimes. They just lock up or execute the people that do.
I’m against this immigration bill a 100 percent. If they give these Mexicans amnesty they will come after my job. They will be able to get drivers liscences and drive my beer truck. And I will be stuck in the warehouse stacking the heavy cases of beer. Pretty soon my trailer will be surrounded by Mexican trailers. And there will go the neyborhood. They will cast lustful eyes on the missus and open all kind of Mexican stores.
Anyway we need to make GA a good place for us rednecks to live. And that means no amnesty for the illegals. They work too hard to be around and applying for the same jobs we do. Keep them working in the chicken plants and other places we don’t want to work. Pretty soon they would consider their selfs just as good as us. Making them legal would pretty well spell the end of the good redneck life. We would have to go on welfare and even Peach Care for our kids. That would be a desgusting thing. We might even have to become libruls. I would have to commit suicide! Better dead than red.
By lucky
May 21, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this
Isakson and Chambliss are traitors and have betrayed their constituents in favor of special interest lobbiests. They are as corrupt as the Mexican government’s politicians.
We do not need this legislation. Our present immigration laws are among the most lenient in the world. We need enforcement. If, as the Feds claim, the present criminal aliens cannot be deported, how do they think we can enforce this cumbersome new law? Exceptions will be the rule and the taxpayer will pay the bill and our country’s sovereignty is at stake. Yes, that pesky North American Union is also contained in that bill.
Move over Jane Fonda, make room for Isakson and Chambliss in the GA Hall of Shame. And voters, make sure you send them home for good next election.
Please folks, vote for Tom Tancredo for the sake of your children’s futures.
By artc
May 21, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this
Forget Sonny. Isackson for VP. What the hell Isackson for President. You go Johnny!!
By artc
May 21, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
Nothing makes my day more than seeing a bunch of right wing racist trash pizzed off AND pizzed on! I guess you see where you stand don’t ya wingwacks? LMAO!!
By Dave
May 21, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
To artc Name calling is sure sign that you feel you have lost the argument.
It is useful in this discussion to keep the discourse at an adult level and let people express themselves.
This legislation is unfair to those legal immigrants who are going through the appropriate and painful channels which are required for legal permanent status. By supporting this legislation, you tell them that they are not important or valuable.
By Ms Writer
May 21, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
Clarification: Does this bill only apply to Mexican Illegal Immigrants? If so, isn’t THAT a little racist?
By Bosch
May 21, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
You know, I had a thought about this on the way to work. One thing that I need clarification on - can somebody help me here, but do illegal immigrants have to go back to their country of origin and then come back?
But here was my thought - so the people here have to pay a $5000 fine, well, why would they do that? I mean, they are here already, why would they do that? The government is not enforcing this law, what makes everyone believe now they will?
If I were an illegal immigrant and was already here working, I wouldn’t pay a $5000 fine. If I got caught and deported, so what? I’d just come back.
There is provisions for stricter border patrol, and until that is done (which I’ll hold my breath to see that), this law is useless.
We need our soldiers home from Iraq to help protect our own borders. That’s that.
By artc
May 21, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this
What argument Dave? You anti fanatics might as well be the proverbial tree falling in the forest. And it’s about time. The bill will pass and then you can go cry in your Budweiser with the rest of the klavern.
By Sandra
May 21, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this
Why don’t we just deprot the right wing obstructionist crowd?
By Bosch
May 21, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
No, Ms Writer, I don’t think it does, I think it applies to ALL illegal immigrants. And that’s a good point, because there are a lot of illegal immigrants here that aren’t Hispanic.
In my opinion, people are prejudiced against the Hispanic population. If a good looking European family moved in next door (and was here illegally), these people screaming for the deportation of all illegal Hispanics, well, something tells me they wouldn’t mind the pretty European family moving in, they would think it was cool and tell all their friends!
By deegee
May 21, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this
You can recognize the dittoheads and the Hannabees through the use of the word “sovereign”. The definition is “above all others, chief, supreme”. That there are about 10 million illegal workers in the US confirms that the current immigration laws are unenforceable. The supply of native born American labor in all areas of the workforce is insufficient to feed the demand. No one is serious about deporting 10 million people, not even Lou Dobbs.
Now the question is how to handle their status. To argue against immigration reform is to maintain the status quo and continue a societal norm where an underclass of untouchable laborers lurk in the shadow of the wealthy middle and upper class. Sounds like sovereignty to me.
By artc
May 21, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this
Ms Writer, the bill applies to all undocumented immigrants. You just here the word Mexican rolling from the tongues of the antis almost exclusively. Now that is racist. I have yet to hear one bigot say that all the Bosnian, Russian, or any shade of white immigrant needs to go. That’s what’s racist. If every illegal here had white skin the rabid antis wouldn’t even no there was an issue to begin with. It is skin color that gets their attention.
By harold
May 21, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this
PUBLIC OPINION MATTERS TODAY,EH?
PUBLIC OPINION ALSO SAYS END THE NEVER-ENDING WAR. HOW ABOUT THAT? OH DOESN’T MATTER.
SO PUBLIC OPINION COUNTS WHEN YOU AGREE WITH THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC OPINION DOES NOT COUNT WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THE PUBLIC.
WELL FOR MISTER BUSH PUBLIC OPINION DOES NOT MATTER, EVER. WELCOME TO OUR SIDE MR WOOTEN. NOW YOU KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE. BUSH WILL DO WHATEVER HE WANT. HE DOESNT CARE. HE THINKS HE IS THE ANTICHRIST HERE TO PERFORM THE RAPTURE AND UNIFY ISRAEL OR SOME LOONY CRAP LIKE THAT. MEXICANS ARE CATHOLICS, SO OPENING THE DOORS TO THEM MAKES AMERICA STRONGER BECAUSE IT ADDS A BUNCH OF CHRISTIANS TO THE VOTING ROLLS DOESNT IT.
BUSES CHRISTIAN RIGHT WING CRAP FINALLY BIT YOU IN THE BUTT DIDNT IT.
By Dave
May 21, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this
artc Well from the news reports, both the far left as well as the far right oppose this for different but valid reasons based on their political perspectives. I am the son of an immigrant, my grandmother is not a citizen but has permanent legal status and many of my friends are going through the process of becoming a legal permanent resident. How does opposing this make me a racist, bigot or other epithets? Ad hominem attacks do not help your argument.
By Jack
May 21, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this
The bill is a slap in the face for those who entered this country legally. Eliminate the “anchor” baby now.
By Bosch
May 21, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this
Deegee, Exactly! Think about the soccer moms who are living in those big beautiful mansions in East Cobb. Do you think they would be able to afford those beautiful houses if they were built by unionized American construction workers? Hell no, they wouldn’t. They would have to get out of the gym, out of the tanning bed, and go to work to afford a house like that.
The ones screaming for the deportation of these people have benefited off the backs and sweat of “those people” for the past 20 years.
By Sandra
May 21, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this
Harold 06 bit them in the butt and they are STILL too blind to see it. They got blasted into political non-relavency and haven’t figured it out yet. It is going to be hilarious watching THEM tap to the moderate tune now. The day of the right wing is over.
By Bosch
May 21, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this
Dave, I agree with you. I have a couple of friends who came here legally, and went through the legal process and they are p**! And I don’t blame them. And you are right, it is the far wings of both sides who are fighting for this, but for totally different reasons, that’s why there needs to be a valid debate to bring this law a little more to the middle - listen to the middle of the road.
I think that many people just don’t see the big picture, but has more to do with their blindness of rascism than anything else.
By melo
May 21, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this
The alternative that the Right wingers want is either a status quo or deporting all the illegal immigrants.Deportation wholesale is IMPOSSIBLE, the status quo is even worse for security reasons when u have all these people in the shadows and dont know who is where.
This bill provides for both enforcement and legalizing those who are here already. Mind u, the majority of them are hardworking people who pay payroll taxes. This is not even AMNESTY, because there is no instant granting of legalization. They go through background checks,$50000.00 fine, and get a work visa for 3 tp 4 years but renewable and can only apply for citizenship after 8 years, i understand from ajc(sunday edition) So anybody calling this AMNESTY is doing so out of spite, ignorance, racism or both!!
This bill is good for business, for the farmers in GA, for the consumers of foods etc. WAY TO GO MR TED KENNEDY!!!
By Dave
May 21, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this
A question to all those who are upset at the opposition to this bill. Why are you so angry? What is it about this discussion which pushes your buttons and causes so much anger and hatred at the opposite side of the issue? Do you have ulterior motives or do you have a genuine dislike and hatred for anyone who disagrees with you. I think the larger problem in politics today is the attempt to silence your opposition from having any debate at all. That sounds very much like the politics of Stalin. Do you want to execute and imprison people who disagree with you too?
By Deport all illegal parasites now
May 21, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this
If snivelling leftists like the oily, execrable Sen. L. Graham S.C. were actually capable of practising intellectual honesty then the illegal infestation could be resolved swiftly enough. Graham talked on Sunday of the need to finally crack down on employers and fine them, also introducing LONG OVERDUE tamper proof ids, plus “supposedly” sealing the border. So why NOT just do this?
There’s NO need whatever to give these mostly non-English speaking leeching parasites amnesty and allow them all - around 20 million - to stay here and bring in the rest of their equally mostly uneducated families. The average mexican and the average mexican type illegal has little more than a sixth grade education. Mexico actually stops formally educating its tens of millions of little more than functioning illiterates at age 14. So we in the US get dumped on by the ever increasing, expensive needs of around 20 million illegal proles, most of whom are incapable of passing even the pathetically dumbed down high school exit exam!! Even if they could speak English!!
Illegal is illegal - whilst sadly the vast majority of illegals are mexican types lets not forget the white ones and the asian ones and the afriKan ones ALL OF THEM NEED TO BE DEPORTED ASAP!!
My wife and I will NOT vote for either Isaakson or Chambliss ever again if they vote for this poisonous, destroy America surrender to illegals bill.
The senile far left nutter Karter has again disgraced the little of what’s left of his worst ever president legacy with another envious deranged outburts of Bush hate. Time for this smug senile has been to be securely locked away in a home for badly bewildered hate America pinkos.
By DebbieDoRight
May 21, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
Now the question is how to handle their status. To argue against immigration reform is to maintain the status quo
I don’t think that Jim W (don’t know about the others) is arguing against immigration reform; I think he, like I, would like to know what the full bill entails; and not just the Cliff Notes version. If this is the best course to follow, then give the people of America, whose taxes will be the ones supporting the bill, a chance to make an intelligent choice for ourselves.
By holdingAJCaccountable
May 21, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
A typically (and hypocritically) spineless and gutless conservative bill. If you don’t SECURE the border, the same thing will happen AGAIN.
For all the yak conservatives give about “the free market” the free market solution is there: make life HELL on the employers who hire them.
But you can’t. Why? Spineless and gutless (and hypocritical) conservatives. “Rule of law”? Oh, that doesn’t apply here, because these bidness owners are “respectable” citizens
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this
I came here legally too! And I’m NOT pi#sed. Any other immigrant that is might as well be the whiner in the school yard. Legal immigrants know better than anyone else how cumbersome and expensive the present process is. Furthermore, I have not heard even ONE legal immigrant objecting to this bill.
By deegee
May 21, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this
Bosch, there are millions of illegal immigrants that are anxious to pay the fine and achieve some sort of legal status. All they want to do is to be able to work, get a drivers license and to live without the fear of getting caught in a dragnet. Being deported has very serious implications for most people and it is something to be avoided. Illegal immigrants pay upwards of $1,000 fine every time they are caught driving without a license. They can’t get a license in Georgia and most other states without legal residency.
The problem with the proposal for leaving the country is the fear that the immigrant will, 1. lose their job if the process takes an extended period of time. 2. not be allowed back in due to red tape or mismanagement of their documentation.
By artc
May 21, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
Dave, I’m not here to “argue”. I’m here to enjoy the discomfiture of the rabid antis. And today I wil be ROFL with glee.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this
You may think this is good for the consumer,but there is always a price to pay. Just for Social Security cost of these individuals we are looking at 2.2 Trillion dollars. Yes, that is with a T.,over the next 20 yrs. And yes these individuals must go through steps to become legal.I doubt this will happen,because if they would have done this in the first place they would not be here illegally.And what do you do with the next person that comes over here after the cutoff. This debate will start all over again. MeloI guess many people have learned to cry* racist * when they can’t get their way. Since illegals are of many colours who is the racist.Law abiding citizens,or those who waited their turns to imigrate legally?
By Curious Observer
May 21, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
The big lie still lives. The mantra of the opponents and proponents alike of the new immigration proposal is that there are many jobs that legal Americans won’t do. Wrong. There are many jobs that legal Americans won’t do for what employers are willing to pay. Raise the wages for those jobs and you’ll see a line of legal workers applying to take them.
The truth is that American consumers want the lowest prices possible while turning blind eyes to the reason those prices are low. Thus, WalMart and the thousands of employers of illegal aliens are able to shift the social costs of their workers onto the consumers. The consumer thinks he is saving money, while in reality he is paying more in taxes or budget deficits to more than make up for the money he thinks he’s saving on consumer goods.
Stop telling the big lie, and stop interfering with the law of supply and demand through contravening immigration law. If immigration laws were really enforced, we would soon see wages rise to attract legal workers. As it is, the American consumer is too stupid to see that the low prices he thinks he’s getting are merely part of a shell game: while he’s keeping money in one pocket, the government is taking it out of the other.
By getalife
May 21, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
Its amnesty and will not pass.
It will be a Presidential issue.
Linkin Park steps up to the plate
By Kurt
May 21, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
By DebbieDoRight
May 21, 2007 9:52 AM
If this is the best course to follow, then give the people of America, whose taxes will be the ones supporting the bill, a chance to make an intelligent choice for ourselves.
Debbie, I suggest you be given the same opportunity that the citizens of Georgia were given to make the choice on the sale of beer on Sunday. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And to that moron above that wants to ammend the constitution to eliminate anchor babies, I will go for that if we get to ammend the second ammendment while we’re at it. You guys are all for choice until it is one of your pet issues on the block. Then it is not no, but HELL NO to choice. Why don’t we throw in a referendum on a woman’s right to choose while we’re at it. How about it Debbie?
By harold
May 21, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
why did they go after that mom from cobb for sending her children to marietta schools? marietta schools are far better. under school choice, her tax payments to cobb should be sent over to marietta like she did with her child. why didnt marietta just ask cobb for the money?
harold is suprised all parents in cobb dont send their chidlren to marietta city rather than the scientifically lacking cobb “god made the universe in 7 days” county schools
her charges shouldve been dropped because children have the right to a public education but cobb doesnt provide an education. they provide stickers and biblically based mythological hooey turning their children into mindless zombie idiots!!!
By getalife
May 21, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
Homer explains the liberal media
Family Guy went back in time with Al Gore as President.
Great stuff.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
“What we’ve done is we’ve come up with a solution that doesn’t allow these people to jump the line in terms of getting a green card,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. “Everybody who has been on line waiting patiently gets ahead of them. They have to pay a penalty, similar to what you pay if you commit a misdemeanor, which is what this is under the existing state of the law.”
So what is the problem?
By Bosch
May 21, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
Deegee, I think you are right about that - I think there are many who would want to do that, but there are many who wouldn’t.
My biggest concern is the ENFORCEMENT of any immigration law. For the past 20 years this country has seen millions of illegal immigrants come in. Why? Because there is no enforcement of the law because it hasn’t been a big concern for lawmakers.
Illegal immigrants are good for business, they make goods and services a lot cheaper for middle class folks, so I think that the legislature at the state and federal level have turned a blind eye to the problem.
You said that illegal immigrants have to pay $1000 fine EACH TIME they are caught driving without a license? Well, why are they given another chance to drive? If they are caught once why aren’t they sent home? See, that’s the problem, we just turn a blind eye.
Now, we have security issues with terrorists, and it’s been five years since 9/11 and what’s been done to help secure our borders? Not much.
I think if our government was serious about enforcing the existing laws we have, things would have been okay, but they haven’t, it has escalated into a mess that is almost impossible to solve.
By harold
May 21, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
harold seen a bumper sticker the other day that read “reelect al gore”
funny stuff!
but seriously no dont do that. when we elected gore, we got the Worst president ever!!!!!
By Deport all illegal parasites now
May 21, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this
Furthermore, I have not heard even ONE legal immigrant objecting to this bill.
YOU SAD PATHETIC LIAR!!!
Every single legal immigrant I know is vehemently opposed to this bill. My wife works in the immigration ‘biz’ and all the thousands of legal immigrants she works with are very very angry at the free ride and tax payer funded welfare etc illegals get. Legal immigrants play by the rules, they pay hefty INS fees, and immigration lawyer fees and are ineligible for govt benefits etc. They wait for years and are invariably treated like sh!t by often racist black female Atlanta INS officers.
Klinton’s Labour Certification amnesty was virtually IGNORED by mexicans, if they wanted to become legal they had an excellent opportunity to do so years ago. MOst do not, unless its handed to them for free, with NO hassle. Labour Certification applicants only had to pay a $1000 fine and still the mexican types refused to apply. But indians, pakis, afrikans, south americans, some euros and canadians etc queued up to apply.
heebeedeegees lies are NO better.
illegal mexican types do NOT get fined every time they are caught without a GA licence. go talk to cops, most let it ride virtually every single time. the illegal mexican who hit our truck several years ago had no insurance either - they let him go with no ticket, the accident was actually his fault. I know many US drivers who’ve been hit by illegals, same thing - no police action unless someone is badly hurt in the accident. my insurance broker had his new SUV written off by an illegal with no licence/insurance in Cobb - no action taken by the cops. the law may say the sanctions can be applied - but they rarely are!!
being deported is a joke and litle more than just an annoying inconvenience to most mexican type illegals, most just come back in very quickly. as the national crime stats of constantly arrested illegal criminals shows.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Amelia,Last week you mentioned the 90Million these people contribute. How does the figure of 2.2 trillion for Social Security only grab you. You and I have paid these taxes all our lives. Is it just these people who have paid nothing to the system receive these benefits?
By General Manager
May 21, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this
So Curious Observer. Just how much should gutting fish down at the Farmer’s Market pay? Sounds to me like alot of you “Americans” want to inflate wages just so an American will grace us with his presence in the workplace. Sounds like an entitlement program to me. Is welfare for Americans what you want Curious Observer?
By deegee
May 21, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this
DebbiedoRight, I would love for people to read the entire immigration proposal with an open mind. Then people would see that it is NOT an amnesty bill as Lou Dobbs has declared. Unfortunately, for most Americans even reading the Cliff Notes version is too tedious. Why do you think politicians are so interested in “soundbites”? Please, do me a favor and read the entire proposal.
By holdingAJCaccountable
May 21, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this
The SAME people who call liberals “weak” and “capitulating” on Iraq proposed this bill?! Hypocrite, thy name is conservative.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this
What is your point RCH? Legals will be paying into Social Security. They will be contributing before they get one dime in Social Security. What anti-immigrant website did you get that nonsense from. Trust the GAO RCH. Think $90,000,000,000 net gain. PER YEAR. But please do explain how someone that has paid nothing into the system gets to draw. Should be interesting to hear that one.
By Southern Democrat
May 21, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
I am in total agreement with Jbmlaw on this issue. In fact, I would advocate going a step further. I am all in favor of a North American Union that allows free passage of goods and workers between Canada-U.S.-Mexico. Basically, that would mean that we would have unfettered access to the natural resources of Canada (a nation that has the population of less than California + New York, I believe) and (here’s the sticking point), increased access to Mexican oil (now state-owned) that we could refine much more cheaply than they do now… weaning our dependence of Middle Eastern oil while developing cleaner technologies in acknowledgment of their diminishing size.
We (and Canada) would then have increased access to a large workforce of Mexicans that are hardworking and (to help the GOP) would break the unions’ hold on manufacturing jobs. Our ability to obtain cheap natural resources and access to cheap labor would maintain our competitive edge over both Europe and China.
By Kurt
May 21, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
Deport all illegal parasites now, when they are legal they can have insurance moron. All the more reason to pass this bill.
By holdingAJCaccountable
May 21, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
General Manager,
I think what people want is for conservatives to shut up talkin’ about “rule of law” when they actively encourage bidness to BREAK THE LAW by hiring illegal workers.
Are we somehow unclear on the concept?
By deegee
May 21, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this
Bosch, traffic infractions are not deportable crimes. Local police are not yet immigration authorities but are quickly trying to become such. Aside from that, they understand that in this town you need to drive to get to work. Now we’re back to the “deport all illegals” mantra. It isn’t practical.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
Amelia Read the bill carefully.These individuals will qualify for SS payments after 5 years of citizenship.SS benifits will be available to the surviving spouse or child imediatly.The 2.2 Trillion fiqure came the govts. own SS admin. staff, not from some anti-immigrant wbsite.You should know me better than that.
By Ms Writer
May 21, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this
If “amnesty” is given…along with Medicaid, Food Stamps, and other so called supplements already given to support illegal immigrants…eventually student loans will be given to fund college educations, then and only then will extremist liberals see illegal immigration as a threat…you don’t feel threatened as long as the poor Mexicans are picking oranges and ringing chicken heads.
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
Since the 1986 immigration bill was not enforced, why does anyone think this new immigration bill will be enforced?
This bill is AMNESTY! Why should people who broke our immigration laws be allowed to reside in the USA as legal residents why those who follow the rules wait in their home countries?
By harold
May 21, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this
lotsa mexican hating whiners say immigration should not be fixed because people who have previously immigranted legally had a bunch of stupid paperwork to do
well by that token the speed limit should never have been raised from 55 to 70 because previusly a lot of people had to drive 55 and got expensive speeding tickets for going 75 whereas now the transportation police do not bat an eyelash at 75 (even in a 45 zone!)
if we kept the 55 mph speed limit we would not need all these illegals
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this
Pay in. Take out. If you haven’t paid in you won’t take out. And RCH. Frankly, and we had this discussion last week, I really don’t care. I’m for the bill. It is the right thing to do. The dollars mean absolutely NOTHING to me. This country has damn near lost it’s sould because of money already. At least this time it will be because of doing the right thing.
By Kurt
May 21, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
By Ms Writer
May 21, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this
If “amnesty” is given…along with Medicaid, Food Stamps, and other so called supplements already given to support illegal immigrants…eventually student loans will be given to fund college educations, then and only then will extremist liberals see illegal immigration as a threat…you don’t feel threatened as long as the poor Mexicans are picking oranges and ringing chicken heads.
If they are legal, why should they not have access to these things. You are starting to show your racism Ms Writer. Are you afraid of a hard worker and better educated immigrant populace? And I hate to tell you. It ain’t amnesty anymore than paying a traffic ticket and avoiding jail is amnesty. Come back with an argument rooted in logic some time today if you can.
By DebbieDoRight
May 21, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
deegee at 10:23 — I’ve been trying to find the link where I could read the entire proposal/bill myself — still looking. And you’re right, in order to understand it people will need an open mind while they’re reading it.
From Kurt at 10:09 You guys are all for choice until it is one of your pet issues on the block. Then it is not no, but HELL NO to choice. Why don’t we throw in a referendum on a woman’s right to choose while we’re at it. How about it Debbie?
Geesh Kurt, I just wanna know what the full bill says!!! What’s so wrong with that?! Why is it “illegal” for someone to be fully informed in America? I never said I had a die hard solid opinion one way or another, I just said I wanna know exactly what the bill entails. How you’re carrying on, you’d think I’d made fun of your stutter or something.
By Ma Kettle
May 21, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
Give amnesty to the productive, boot the deadbeats and criminal, and control the danged border.
By deegee
May 21, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
Here is a link to the Fox Report showing that the crackdown on the border is working. The California agriculture industry is now experiencing the pain as we consumers will do so in short order. Give the workers a path to come here AND WORK legally and they will use it.
While you may think that the lure of WIC is overwhelming for immigrants, think again. It is the lure of a job that brings them here. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants would like to pay the fine and lead a normal life without worrying about whether or not they can tend to an ailing mother or father in their country of origin.
http://www.foxnews.com/foxreport/index.html
By Bosch
May 21, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
Deegee, I know it’s not practical to deport all illegal immigrants, and I didn’t mean to imply that. I was just using your example, I actually agree with what you are saying.
I’m just trying to make a point that immigration laws haven’t been enforced for years, and like Rick just said, why should we believe they are going to be.
Government has ignored the problem for years, and now it has turned into a big mess.
I think a lot of the issue as well, is also about pure rascism, but that has happened before in history, Irish Catholics were the targets once.
In past mass immigration cycles in this country, there wasn’t such a concern for our safety and security like there is now.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
Is it the right thing or the easy thing to do.Ten years from now, when another 15 million ask for amnesty again what will you tell me then?
By no answer
May 21, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this
personally,I’m sick of all the New Yorkers that have moved to Atlanta.They come down here and steal our jobs,start dating our women,they talk funny,they make fun of the way we talk,they bring crime and violence down here,and they are clogging up our traffic!
By no answer
May 21, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
personally,I’m sick of all the New Yorkers that have moved to Atlanta.They come down here and steal our jobs,start dating our women,they talk funny,they make fun of the way we talk,they bring crime and violence down here,and they are clogging up our traffic!
By Curious Observer
May 21, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
I fail to see what requiring employers to hire legal workers and pay prevailing wages has to do with welfare or entitlements.
The truth is that the wingnuts want to keep the present situation. They want to be able to shift jobs to illegal workers and undercut prevailing wages—provided, of course, they can’t find a way to ship those jobs overseas. They want to be able to make a profit at the expense of legal workers and taxpayers in general.
The law of supply and demand can work with respect to wages and prices only when all parties to the employment agreement are required to obey national and state laws. At present, employers seem to want to be exempt from those laws.
So, General Manager, the answer to your question “How much should gutting fish down at the Farmer’s Market pay?” is “enough to attract a legal worker to perform its duties.” That’s the law of supply and demand. Thousands of employers need to adhere to it when they set salaries for new employees. Why should the employers who skirt established law be exempt? They are presently undercutting the profits of competitors who do obey the law, while at the same time they shift worker costs onto the taxpayers.
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
Amelia: I have provided two URLs that reference rate of return on Social Security taxes. There are many more on the net.
In essence, low income earners receive much, much more than they pay into the system. Immigrants legal or otherwise, that start contributing at a later age receive the most for their contributions. While the new immigrants might contribute a paltry amount towards the current population receiving SS, when they retire, the system will fail!
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/wklyltr99/el99-34.html
“By design, Social Security redistributes income by means of a progressive benefit formula. Low-paid workers are awarded a greater fraction of their pre-retirement income than high-paid workers.”
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/01/approximating-social-securitys-rate-of.html
“If you play with the income numbers (which realistically fall between $0 and $97,000), you’ll see that the lower income earners come out way ahead of high income earners. Social Security’s benefits are designed to redistribute income in favor of those with low incomes.”
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
The same exact thing RCH. Were that to happen. But now that you mention easy RCH, why don’t you and all the other hardcore antis on this blog tell us how “easy” it will be to deprot 12 million people. Attach a dollar figure to that one at the federal, state, and local levels RCH, since money seems to be your overriding concern. How much will THAT cost? And you guys surely can work out the logistics of it. all the way from the local jails to the border. Put a price tag on that one RCH. Now that I’ve told you in no uncertain terms that I am for it no matter what, why don’t you fess up and tell us what it really is with you. The alternative to this bill is alot more expensive than this bill ever could be. And really, can there be any argument to the contrary? 12 million people RCH. Put a price tag on not passing this bill.
By getalife
May 21, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this
How many American can break the law, not pay taxes and demand amnesty for these crimes?
The next time you are pulled over for speeding, tell the officer you demand amnesty.
Geez.
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
Here is a link to the draft immigration bill:
http://truthlaidbear.com/immigrationbill0518.php?page=1
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
We should be thinking about overpopulation, overcrowding, shortages of water, gas, electricity, etc.
Everyone in this country should see the non-political video “Immigration by the Numbers,” by Roy Beck.
The video is extremely eye opening and may change your view on immigration in general, legal or illegal.
Visit the link below and see what the future holds for your children and grandchildren. Please watch!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=nunmber
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
Explain how paying a $5000.00 fine is amnesty? And now that you mention it, obviously there are many. How many cases of massive tax debts where businesses and individuals have paid 10% of huge tax bills and walked away has there been? Is that amnesty? You just don’t want them here. I do. Be honest about it getalife.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this
ThanksRick,Amelia needed to see that.Again,illegal immigration is an * economic* issue Amelia. That is why they are here and that is why they would leave.There is no racial component to this. No job, schooling, houseing,etc.they will leave. Then address a real immigrationpolicy . A orderly process of bringing in new workers and citizens.Why do we have to do this backward.And why cannot anybody tell me what we will do when the next person crosses the border illegally?Let this swell to 20 million and do this again?
By getalife
May 21, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this
Better yet, since they waste so much money, lets all not pay taxes and demand amnesty.
Geez.
By young lady
May 21, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
I am for the bill becuase it benifits both peoples point of view. On the behalf of the “mexicans” as most of all would say, but you guys need to realize that they are NOT ALL MEXICANS…they would have to pay fines and learn the language, bu tthe head of household would have to go back to the country of origin which would be a bad thing because the head of house hold makes the most money…But I belive the immigrant community is willing to complete alot of these requirements. I dont see a better idea then this considering the fact that you cant deport millions of people. On the behalf of the people that oppose the bill; the fines that will be paid would contribute to the countries welfare…”because according to many people immigrants DO NOT PAY TAXES” WILL THEY DO ITS CALLED USING A TAX ID NUMBER….Learning english will make it easier for everyone to communicate but I believe learning two languages is essentail in any market bussiness. I dont think that there will ever be a bill that will satifsy both sides but this is pretty close…..
By getalife
May 21, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
All Americans locked up should demand amnesty.
By young lady
May 21, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this
I am for the bill becuase it benifits both peoples point of view. On the behalf of the “mexicans” as most of all would say, but you guys need to realize that they are NOT ALL MEXICANS…they would have to pay fines and learn the language, bu tthe head of household would have to go back to the country of origin which would be a bad thing because the head of house hold makes the most money…But I belive the immigrant community is willing to complete alot of these requirements. I dont see a better idea then this considering the fact that you cant deport millions of people. On the behalf of the people that oppose the bill; the fines that will be paid would contribute to the countries welfare…”because according to many people immigrants DO NOT PAY TAXES” WILL THEY DO ITS CALLED USING A TAX ID NUMBER….Learning english will make it easier for everyone to communicate but I believe learning two languages is essentail in any market bussiness. I dont think that there will ever be a bill that will satifsy both sides but this is pretty close…..
By young lady
May 21, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this
I am for the bill becuase it benifits both peoples point of view. On the behalf of the “mexicans” as most of all would say, but you guys need to realize that they are NOT ALL MEXICANS…they would have to pay fines and learn the language, bu tthe head of household would have to go back to the country of origin which would be a bad thing because the head of house hold makes the most money…But I belive the immigrant community is willing to complete alot of these requirements. I dont see a better idea then this considering the fact that you cant deport millions of people. On the behalf of the people that oppose the bill; the fines that will be paid would contribute to the countries welfare…”because according to many people immigrants DO NOT PAY TAXES” WILL THEY DO ITS CALLED USING A TAX ID NUMBER….Learning english will make it easier for everyone to communicate but I believe learning two languages is essentail in any market bussiness. I dont think that there will ever be a bill that will satifsy both sides but this is pretty close….. I
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this
How many times do I have to say that I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE MONEY? Neither of you ever came back on the cost to deport them all. Impress me with your research on that and I might see your point. Until then this bill is by far the best alternative to those not seeing it through brown colored glasses.
By Bosch
May 21, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
Does anybody know if this bill requires Mexico and other Latin American countries something be done on their side? In other words, is the U.S. going to help these countries with the drug wars, economic development, more educational opportunities, etc.
Just a thought - —
By young lady
May 21, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
I am for the bill becuase it benifits both peoples point of view. On the behalf of the “mexicans” as most of all would say, but you guys need to realize that they are NOT ALL MEXICANS…they would have to pay fines and learn the language, bu tthe head of household would have to go back to the country of origin which would be a bad thing because the head of house hold makes the most money…But I belive the immigrant community is willing to complete alot of these requirements. I dont see a better idea then this considering the fact that you cant deport millions of people. On the behalf of the people that oppose the bill; the fines that will be paid would contribute to the countries welfare…”because according to many people immigrants DO NOT PAY TAXES” WILL THEY DO ITS CALLED USING A TAX ID NUMBER….Learning english will make it easier for everyone to communicate but I believe learning two languages is essentail in any market bussiness. I dont think that there will ever be a bill that will satifsy both sides but this is pretty close….. I
By young lady
May 21, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
I am for the bill becuase it benifits both peoples point of view. On the behalf of the “mexicans” as most of all would say, but you guys need to realize that they are NOT ALL MEXICANS…they would have to pay fines and learn the language, bu tthe head of household would have to go back to the country of origin which would be a bad thing because the head of house hold makes the most money…But I belive the immigrant community is willing to complete alot of these requirements. I dont see a better idea then this considering the fact that you cant deport millions of people. On the behalf of the people that oppose the bill; the fines that will be paid would contribute to the countries welfare…”because according to many people immigrants DO NOT PAY TAXES” WILL THEY DO ITS CALLED USING A TAX ID NUMBER….Learning english will make it easier for everyone to communicate but I believe learning two languages is essentail in any market bussiness. I dont think that there will ever be a bill that will satifsy both sides but this is pretty close….. I
By getalife
May 21, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
This just in, OBL demands amnesty for Al Queda.
See where I am going with this?
Geez.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
Rick in Lawrenceville and RCH. How much will it cost to deport 12 million people to several hundred different countries?
By RCH
May 21, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
AmeliaYou might not but others do.If you feel that you must help the financially do so on your own accord,not mine.And one more time.Economics No Jobs, no housing, no social services, no education, no medical, etc. Amelia, they will leave just like they came,without our help.If they cannot make money here they will have to go back home for support. Meanwhile extend work and citizenship to those who apply legally!
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
If we simply enforce our current immigration laws and raid employers that are hiring illegal immigrants we will cause a significant self-deportation.
If that fails, we can use an idea advanced by catlady: deport illegal immigrants and substract the cost of deportation from any foreign aid the US gives to that foreign country.
We might also try turning illegal immigrants over to the US embassy maintained by those foreign governments and tell them that their citizens are breaking our immigration laws.
By getalife
May 21, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Well, the Mexican government lobbys for amnesty.
Why is that? How about lobbying the Mexican government to provide jobs for their people?
Geez.
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
Amelia: It would be cheaper to deport these illegal immigrants using commercial air service.
The cost of public education for the children of illegal immigrants is 50 billion/year…5 million children X $10,000/year.
Let deport 15 million illegal immigrants and their children business class at $1,000 each. That is $15 billion to deport them and we save 50-15 = $35 BILLION this year alone!
Please check my math or estimates and replace with your own!
By Bosch
May 21, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
Getalife, Read my earlier post at 11:25- do you know anything about that? I totally agree with what you just wrote.
By Kurt
May 21, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this
RCH you’re grasping at straws. Rick in Lawrenceville you’re jus a klansman trying to come in here an pass himself off as mainstream. Both of you were asked a question that you ducked like someone had thrown a rock at you. HOW MUCH WILL IT COST TO DEPORT THEM ALL? If it’s about economics and you fail to see the the more expensive of the two options, than actually the both of you aare pretty damn dumb.
By Tommy
May 21, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
RCH, you’re an idiot.
By deegee
May 21, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
RCH, glad to see you coming around. The bill does exactly what you have proposed which is to extend work and citizenship to those who apply legally! Under the current system it is impossible for but a very few unskilled and semi-skilled workers to come here legally and work.
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this
Kurt: You made two assertions.
Let me see your reasoning!
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this
And that includes all the cost of rounding them up, incarcerating them, running them through the system, the whole nine yards? The more you talk the less sense you make Rick from Lawrenceville. And all this you want to do to people who are , AND I SAY AGAIN, a $90,000,000,000 net gain to this nations economy as reported by THE GAO!
By Former INS
May 21, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
Rick you are delusional. You would have to hire 10s of thousands of more folks just to do the roundup. Not to mention the administrative staff to process paper. And that is just at the federal level. You are truly out of your mind.
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
Amelia: The costs that you bring up are fixed costs anyway.
We employ border agents and ICE agents to enforce our immigration laws…do you want them to just sit around on their butt all day?
By RCH
May 21, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
Kurt A fast example. During the Carter years when we had 22% inflation,high unemployment,the stream of illegal aliens slowed to a trickle and even reversed itself. IF THERE ARE NO JOBS THEY WILL LEAVE.They came here without our help, they can leave the same way.If you deny them all services they cannot exist here. There is no costs,just savings.What are the costs if they stay? And againlet me ask,what do you do with the next 2omillion that come here illegally? throw more money at the problem?
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
Former INS: Amelia requested that I do a calculation of the cost of deportation. That is what I produced.
I favor enforcement of our immigration laws at the employer level to cut off the supply of jobs.
I have never advocated going out and rounding up illegal immigrants one by one. I was simply responding to a request for an estimate.
By Kurt
May 21, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
Then maybe we should go back to the Carter years. Obviously any means justifies the end to you. You just want them gone. Try a little honesty RCH. You get dumber everytime you open your mouth RCH. Nothing is going to run them home. You are using the same logic that brought about prohibition and we all know how well that worked out.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
Uh, Rick. HEEEELOOOO! So where are all those border patrol agents to come from to round up the 90% of them that are located in the interior? You are not making alot of sense. In fact, the longer this goes on the more straws you are grasping.
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this
Kurt, as RCH has already explained.
If we can not control our immigration now, what chance do we have in the future?
RCH outlines a very good solution. In fact, the current immigration bill is now being “dumped” by an association of US employers, because it requires them to use a program to verify immigration status on all workers.
Employers want CHEAP LABOR, but they know now that new labor will not be cheap.
I can probably get that reference for you, it is one of today’s articles (prob. NY Times).
By RCH
May 21, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Kurt It seems that many agree with me that the strangle hold of jobs would do the trick. I am not advocating stopping immigration because that is what this country was founded on; I am advocating legal immigration because this country was founded on a set of laws. Your example of prohibition is therefor also flawed. I don’t want to stop immigration just bring it under the law like they do liquer. ( Bootleg vs. license seals) And let me ask for the 3rd time,what do you do with the next 20 million that come her illegally?
By Former INS
May 21, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Wait a minute Rick. All morning you have been in here advocating deportation. Now you say you want to deport them without a roundup. So pray tell how do you get your hands on them to deport them Rick. And on top of the cost, how many thousands of years would it take to deport all of them assuming that the numbers stay the same. You really are not making any sense whatsoever now Rick.
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Amelia: as usual, you are not following this thread. I advocate sanctions on employers that hire illegal immigrants.
How long will illegal immigrants stay in this country if they are unable to work?
Also, our ICE agents might find this full time work for decades! Nice to think they have a career in the US.
By BECKY
May 21, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
We can discuss all day long about illegal immigration but the thruth is that the resolution has already taken at the congress with close doors by politic interest and as thinking people we are lets face it 12 million of illegal immigrants are already here being part of the system on my opinion is more risky ignore who they are, where they live. have them driving without a license and insurance, not paying taxes. The economy needs new money try to keep the resources that they send to their countries to stay here because as all of us noticed the economy right know sucks!!! so lets go and make official a fact they are here they are not leaving anywhere, our economy needed. and just a little suggestion for those that speak about the mexicans=illegal immigrants you sound really ignorant and racist, the illegal immigration cames for all over the world not because they speak english and look white or black means they are americans even if they look mexican to you may be they are from another country
By HAROLD
May 21, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
WHY SHOULD PEOPLE WHO WERE SPEEDERS WHEN THE SPEED LIMIT WAS 55 NOW BE ALLOWED TO DRIVE 70 LEGALLY? IT AINT FAIR! WAH WAH WAH! LOTS OF PEOPLE OBEYED THE 55MPH SPEED LIMIT! IT AINT FAIR TO LET POEPLE WHO DIDNT GO 70 NOW! WAH WAH WAH! POOR PITIFUL ME!
By Jack
May 21, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this
If your family was starving and the promise land is only a short ride away, wouldn’t you do it? I’d gladly ride 17 to a jiffy-johnny to get across the border in order to make enough to feed my wife and children. If you wouldn’t then I feel for your family.
By Kurt
May 21, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this
Ok RCH, now that you’ve had the hell kicked out of your “economic” argument we are back to the rule of law fall back position. When all else fails, huh, RCH.
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
Former INS: I just came in on my lunch time.
Show me where I have advocated deportation you are talking about?
I simple responded with a calculation.
I don’t think you will find anything other than what I just discussed.
By Tommy
May 21, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
Rick you are truly an idiot.
By harold
May 21, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
THE REAL SURRENDER DATE IS THE DATE BUSH SIGNS THE SURRENDER OF THE USA TO THE MEXICANS!
TEE REAL SURRENDER DATE IS THE DATE BUSH SIGNS THE SURRENDER OF THE USA TO THE MEXICANS!
THE R3AL SURRENDER DATE IS THE DATE BUSH SIGNS THE SURRENDER OF THE USA TO THE MEXICANS!
THE REAL SURENDER DATE IS THE DATE BUSH SIGNS THE SURRENDER OF THE USA TO THE MEXICANS!
THE REAL SURRENDER D8 IS THE D8 BUSH SIGNS THE SURRENDER OF THE USA TO THE MEXICANS!
THE REAL SURRENDER DATE IS THE DATE DUBYA SIGNS THE SURRENDER OF THE USA TO THE MEXICANS!
By jbmlaw
May 21, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
Dear Southern @ 10:30, I would fully support your North American economic union. Anything that removes a layer of laws always looks like a good start to me, and you offer a couple of great economic efficiencies too. Good argument, as always
Dear No Answer @ 10:55, great commentary. I made a similar argument on this spot six months ago, but not nearly as funny as yours, my compliments.
Dear RCH @ various times, I think you are correct to observe that it is an economic issue, but you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The correct resolution to an economic issue is precisely the opposite you recommend – instead, get the government out of the calculus entirely, and allow the free market (like water) to find the appropriate level. You are right that our Mexican brothers will avoid this country when the economy is lousy, but that is not an intelligent reason to manufacture a lousy economy.
By Theresa
May 21, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
Forgive me if somebody already made this point, but if it costs $5,000 to become legal, then, by definition, it’s not amnesty. Those who apply the term amnesty to such a plan are either uninformed or dishonest.
There is much to dislike about this immigration bill, but such rhetoric/misinformation is unhelpful.
By harold
May 21, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
why is bush so worried about surrendering iraq to the iraqis!?! they want to tear their country apart. let them.
bush should be more worried that he is going to sign a SURRENDER BILL surrendering the UNITED STATES to MECIXO!!!!
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
Here are the phone number of our Senators.
It would be more productive to call them and voice your opinions.
Chambliss, Saxby GA (R) 912-232-3657 2 East Bryan Street Savannah, GA 31401 202-224-3521 SR - 416 Washington, DC 20515 770-763-9090 100 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339 229-985-2112 419-A South Main Street Moultrie, GA 31776 706-738-0302 1058 Claussen Road Augusta, GA 30907 478-741-1417 300 Mulberry Street Macon, GA 31201
Isakson, Johnny GA (R) 770-661-0999 One Overton Park Atlanta, 30339 202-224-3643 U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510
By getalife
May 21, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
Sorry folks,
Rick is right.
Employers want cheap labor to improve their bottom line profits.
It started with outsourcing and the is insourcing.
The Mexican government gets a free pass on this bill as usual.
Our government is controlled by the lobbyists.
By Ms Writer
May 21, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
Kurt: “If they are legal, why should they not have access to these things. You are starting to show your racism Ms Writer. Are you afraid of a hard worker and better educated immigrant populace? And I hate to tell you. It ain’t amnesty anymore than paying a traffic ticket and avoiding jail is amnesty. Come back with an argument rooted in logic some time today if you can.”
Learn when to use a question mark then I might let you talk to me.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this
Rick you are not considering the fact that most of them are thriving right now in an underground economy. Take away the jobs with legitimate employers and that underground economy will just get bigger. And they will thrive in it Rick. Why? Because people will continue to hire them as day labor, as landscapers, as house cleaners, etc. And Rick that is exactly what would happen. They are not going to go back. A life in the shadows here is preferable to going back. Take a reality pill Rick. Wishful thinking is never productive. And if you really think that any politician is going to step on the toes of their business cash cow, I have a bridge in the Mojave to sell you.
By D.A.D.
May 21, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
It is said that these folks are here doing the jobs that Americans won’t do or for wages that Americans won’t accept. So my question is this: what happens when they attain legal status, will they no longer want to do those jobs or earn those wages leading to an influx of more illegal immigrants who will? Will the employers who have been getting rich off of people working for sub-minimum wages get rid of those people when they can no longer justify the wages with the illegal argument? And will those same employers re-start the illegal immigrant pipeline to bring in more people they can abuse? To avoid that will our government toughen our border to avoid us going through this same thing again in 10 years time after the next crop of immigrants pours through? I haven’t made up my mind yet on the new immigration bill, but knowing the answers to these questions will surely help me do so.
By Upset Conservative
May 21, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
This massive amnesty bill is NOT a done deal. It may get through the Senate due to the efforts of the turncoats Isakson and Chambliss, but unlike them, House members have to face voters every 2 years.
Call Sens. Isakson & Chambliss and tell them you are NOT fooled, this IS AMNESTY and you are repulsed that they have teamed up with Ted Kennedy and LaRaza to try to ram another amnesty down our throats !!
Johnny Isakson 202-224-3643 770-661-0999
Saxby Chambliss 202-224-3521 912-232-3657
By RCH
May 21, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw Who wants a lousy economy. Not me. All that I am saying is that to control the influx of all immigrant. When the economy is thriving allow more in to perform the work,when it slows reduce the amount.Isn’t that the free market. But remember you must also screen those who come here for crime, illnesses, etc.to protect all that are here.Isn’t that the govts. role. And one more time,this is aimed at all illegals no matter what there nationality or race.
By Former INS
May 21, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
By Rick in Lawrenceville
May 21, 2007 11:36 AM | If that fails, we can use an idea advanced by catlady: deport illegal immigrants and substract the cost of deportation from any foreign aid the US gives to that foreign country.
Right there Ricky. 11:26 AM.
By getalife
May 21, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
OMG, you actually want a North American Union.
You will get the corrupt Mexican government and the drug cartel wars.
You will import major poverty, more drugs and crime.
Our borders will be more wide open for terror attacks.
You end our soverienty as a country.
Geezus fereaking kerist.
Unbelievable.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
If someone has already brought up this point, I apologize in advance.
The problem with this bill, is that it cant be enforced, anymore than the current laws are being enforced. If we go in saying that we simply dont have the manpower to police and deport 12M immigrants, how will we enforce these new restrictions?
And my opinion is that this bill will never become law. Never. By the time the ammendments add up, there will be nothing left but disagreement and wasted time.
By deegee
May 21, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
“Does anybody know if this bill requires Mexico and other Latin American countries something be done on their side? In other words, is the U.S. going to help these countries with the drug wars, economic development, more educational opportunities, etc.”
Bosch, if the people in the US would stop using drugs the drug wars in Latin America would almost immediately stop.
The remittances to Latin America are right behind those going to India and China. They are doing more than anything the US has ever done in the name of foreign aid to foster economic development and improvements in health and education.
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this
LEARN THE LANGUAGE!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You must be fooking joking!!!
For my citizenship interview I answered EVERY SINGLE question about the US correctly - which the hateful black female didn’t like!! She then told me she needed to test my ability to write a sentence in English. She had already established I was perfectly fluent, and had a university degree. I was told to write “I live in a rainy town”. THAT’S IT…
This hateful blackbitch then told me I had to produce any/all traffic tickets before my case could be approved. THIS IS ILLEGAL AND is explicitly AGAINST INS REGULATIONS!! Traffic tickets have NO bearing at all on citizenship!! This was just more petty racial harassment. But I let it go and was approved about 3 weeks later.
Another white English guy, also with a UK degree I know was told to write “I live in a yellow house”. he made a small slightly nervous joke and said his house was another colour, so his hateful black female INS bigot gave him all kinds of grief - just to be hateful. NO reason at all. There’s NO graciousness from these blackbitches, no congratulations. I had a white nazi bastard at my perm residency interview, he could easily have been a camp guard at Auschwitz!! The black INS wimmin treat black afriKans far worse, and if you’re in a racially mixed black/white marriage … get ready to appeal.
Obviously NO one expects to be treated at INS like an old long lost friend but countless Americans I know have been utterly astounded at their imperious disgusting treatment as they look to get their spouses/employees legalised.
Several Indians and some afriKans I know, all of whom have degrees were told to write very similar short child like sentences at their citizenship interviews!!
The language “test” is a freaking joke!!! It doesn’t properly test English writing ability at all.
By getalife
May 21, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this
Wow Realist,
That post was real.
Are you the Alabama Realist?
By Donna P.
May 21, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
The part of the bill that is about “The shift from family ties to job skills as a basis for entry” is BULL. Right now, highly skilled legal immigrants are in our country working as taxi drivers, construction workers, and at Wal-mart. I have two men in my home now doing some wood trim work who are from Russia and both worked as engineers in their country. When we accept highly skilled immigrants, their education, for the most part, is not accepted. They can’t come here and have a career in their chosen fields. So that is a LIE about wanting highly skilled immigrants. Is it that Americans want a brain surgeon doing landscaping or what?
By getalife
May 21, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
“lies”,
She was telling you that you are yellow.
Back to England wanker.
By harold
May 21, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
WE CAINT MAKE THE ILLEGALS INTO LEGALS BECAUSE OUR EXCUSE TO HATE THEM WILL BE TAKEN AWAY!
THEY MUST STAY ILLEGAL! SIMPLY MUST!
WHY ELSE CAN WE HATE THEM!!!
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
So Realist, what is the alternative. The status quo? It is almost starting to sound as if the status quo is just fine with alot of people. Michael Chertoff, told it like it was when he started his press conference the other day with the words, “there are some in this country who won’t be satisfied with anything less than capital punishment for these people”. And I’m starting to believe him. And usually when someone is that rabid it can only mean one thing.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
Yes getalife, its the “real” bama realist.
Im shocked that your shocked. Im against offering these folks any sort of amnesty, which is what this is. If we pass law that gives any sort of status to the immigrant, with the knowing that we cant enforce the restrictions, then you have amnesty plain and simple. I pray this thing doesnt pass as written, and Im appauled with the Bush admin for supproting this garbage. I wish I could understand the bigger picture politics that the conservatives must see that I dont, because I see this bill as anything but something a good conservative should be standing for !!!
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
Harold, sadly, I think you just said it all. That’s it in a nutshell.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
Amelia, I could support most of the current bill if there was more teeth and money for the enforcement aspect, and there just isnt (from what Ive read and heard).
I am against giving any permanence to an illegal, no matter how short, if there is no plan for enforcement for those who DO NOT comply. That is the part nobody wants to deal with. Enforcement and accountability. Nobody wants to be responsible for images of familes being sent back to Mexico on CNN. But in the end, if the laws arent met, that is and should be the outcome!!
By Upset Conservative
May 21, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
Also, contact Georgia House members, tell them NO to the Kyl/Kennedy/Isakson/Chambliss Guest Worker Amnesty Scheme! NO BILL is better than this piece of garbage!
We need to secure the borders, build the fence, go after employers who hire illegals, and end chain migration !
Go to www.fairus.org for contact info
And go to the Georgia Republican Party website, call and voice your opposition to the amnesty scheme:
www.gagop.org
By RCH
May 21, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
Ameliqa So what we do is what this country has done in the past;applied citizeship. YOU did it,my Mother did it .Why not all?
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Realist, please explain how paying a $5000.00 fine is amnesty. Is a traffic fine amnesty? Are the points that go on your license part of that “amnesty? Is paying penalties and interest to the IRS amnesty. Please tell us what other criminal statutes that are satisfied by a fine are amnesty. If you can do that I will buy the amnesty argument wholeheartedly. Or is it only amnesty in this instance? And if so. Why?
By getalife
May 21, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Well Realist,
Many cons are against this bill and you are right, it will never pass.
Its a dog and pony show.
By getalife
May 21, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this
Oh Harold please.
Wingnuts still hate gays, liberals, Muslims, etc,…
Still plenty of hate for the hate party.
Geez.
By Bosch
May 21, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this
Seriously, guys, all this debate is a moot point if you don’t have improved border security.
Bring our troops home so they can protect our borders.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this
Its very simple Amelia. We dont have the manpower and infrastructre in place to enforce all those laws and penalites you just mentioned, anymore than we do to enforce the current laws. You assume that these people are all going to jump at the chance to become citizens and be part of America and that just isnt the case. Studies show, that most simply want to be here a short amount of time under the radar, then return to Mexico and live off the money they have earned here. So again, how do we enforce the new laws, if we couldnt enforce the old ones?
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this
Because RCH, just the sheer numbers make that impractical. To argue that is to fall back on that old argument that everything has to be fair when it never is. To rail and whine about it makes one sound like the brat in the schoolyard that takes his ball home when he thinks it isn’t fair. It is a lame argument. Times change. Situations change and in a world that is all shades of gray, everything is situational.
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
maggot brain
Unlike YOU bubbaturd I am actually a legal US Citizen. Now bugger off back to Cuba!!
By rnm
May 21, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
Not having had the opportunity to read the bill (I assume most of the posters here haven’t either even though they are making some pretty strong statements about it) I can’t really make any informed comment about the legislation. However, with regard to those who are shouting “deport them!”, I’m really curious how they envision that happening. I am not really sure how I feel about this issue of illegal immigration — on one hand, of course people should obey the law, but on the other hand, how can we seriously expect people to stay on “their” side of the border and just look across at all of our propserity, etc. and not want it for themselves — but, exactly how would the US go about deporting 20 million people?? It’s not like it’s a couple thousand people who can be put on planes and sent back. The deportation of 20 million people would be a major population migration that would have tremendous geo-political ramifications. I think we all need to step back, take a deep breath, look at the reality of the situation, and come up with a reasonable and sane plan that goes beyond the childish and racist name calling occuring on this site.
By harold
May 21, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this
THE BURNING QUESTION REMAINS…
WILL BEN HARBIN BE SHARING THE CELEBRITY CELL WITH PARIS HILTON??
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this
Funny how Chambliss only has ONE office anywhere in N GA and FOUR south of Atlanta.
His DC voicemail box was full a few minutes ago. Hopefully the smug pinko illegal lover is getting an earful from all us Americans who despise those that disgustingly pander to illegals!!
Coastal Georgia Office: 2 East Bryan Street Suite 620 Savannah, GA 31401 Main: 912-232-3657 Fax: 912-233-0115
East Georgia Office: 1054 Claussen Road Suite 313 Augusta, GA 30907 Main: 706-738-0302 Fax: 706-738-0901
Middle Georgia Office: 300 Mulberry Street Suite 502 Macon, GA 31201 Main: 478-741-1417 Fax: 478-741-1437 Tollfree: 800-234-4208
North Georgia Office: 100 Galleria Parkway Suite 1340 Atlanta, GA 30339 Main: 770-763-9090 Fax: 770-226-8633
South Georgia Office: 419-A South Main Street P.O. Box 3217 Moultrie, GA 31776 Main: 229-985-2112 Fax: 229-985-2123
Washington D.C. Office: 416 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Main: 202-224-3521 Fax: 202-224-0103
Whereas Isakson only has ONE office in GA…
One Overton Park 3625 Cumberland Boulevard Suite 970 Atlanta, GA 30339 (770) 661-0999 Fax: (770) 661-0768
By Realist
May 21, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this
Amelia, I beleive I neglected to answer your question. You are trying to compare an American citizen getting a fine, or paying penalties to the IRS to the proposed 5000.00 fine to illegals. Again, there is the enforcment issue. Aside from not being able to enforce penalties should they not comply, its simply a false comparison.
When someone gets a ticket or pays the IRS, they have done so with some legal standing in the first place (ie, tested for and recieved DL, or registered with social services and received SSN). We are speaking of people here with no legal footing. No basis whatsoever to operate on. None. The fine and payment of a penalty based on US law shoudl not allow them citizenship or special treatment, because they had no basis or standing to begin with. Does that make sense?
What I can compare it to to help you is a driver driving on a suspended license, and being in an not at fault accident. Though the other driver may have been at fault in the accident, the driver with the suspended license is held accountable because they were operating the vehicle with no legal basis to begin with. There are numerous examples that exist in our legal system that demonstrate the same pricinple….
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this
No I do not assume that Realist. And the bill does not require that. Most legal immigrants here today stay here forever as green card holders only. I became a citizen because I know that I can do more for the issues I care about as a voter than just a voice. And you are extremely wrong to assume that they want to be under the radar. They want to come out of the shadows but will stay there and prosper if that is what this nation decides for them. And while some of them will do as you say, the majority will put down roots here, raise their CITIZEN kids here and be productive members of society.
By Jay
May 21, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this
What is all the money flowing from the U.S. to Mexico being used for? If the answer is goods and services, shouldn’t there be more jobs and higher wages available in Mexico to meet this demand?
By deegee
May 21, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this
Bosch, we do have imporved border security. It is doing the job. See below. This is part of the reason we are seeing debate on the immigration bill. Californians don’t want to see the agriculture industry packing up and moving to Mexico. This is the prospect for the future if something isn’t done quickly.
http://www.foxnews.com/foxreport/index.html
People come to the US to work. Family members and friends in the US will lend money to the foreign worker for their border crossing if they are reasonably certain the individual can work to pay it back. With no prospect for a job they aren’t coming.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this
And by the way. When legalization occurs, there will be alot less to enforce. Attention can then be turned to securing the border instead of worrying about enforcing a bunch of traffic laws and draconian state and local statutes. There really is very little downside to this bill.
By harold
May 21, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this
THE GOVERNMENT LED BY BUSH HAS SURRENDERED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO MEXICO
ONLY THE 2ND AMENDMENT CAN SAVE OUR NATION NOW
ATTENTION WINGNUTS!!
ONLY THE 2ND AMENDMENT CAN SAVE OUR NATION NOW!!!!
NO YOU STUPID WINGNUTS DONT SHOOT THE MEXICANS! THEY ARE JUST HUNGRY. YOULL DO THE SAME CROSSING THE CANADIA BORDER IN A FEW MORE YEARS OF THIS.
YOU MUST DIG UP YOUR ARMS AND REVOLT AGAINST THE BUSH LED CORRUPTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF MEXICO BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
WINGNUTS UNITE! START REVOLTING TODAY! SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM THE CORRUPTED WHO CLAIM TO SERVE IN GOD’S NAME! THEY IS THE ANTICHRIST!
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this
who the F is ben harbin? and who really gives a sh!t - other than our fellow mexican type illegal despising nutter harold?
By Redneck Convert
May 21, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this
Like I said before, letting the illegals stay will make them equal to good God-fearing rednecks like me. Only Those People will be below us then. That would be downright unAmerican.
Until now I didn’t even know these Chambliss and Isakson guys were librul commies. I voted for them because I thought they would make things a lot easier for us rednecks. Now they want to make things harder for us. If good white rednecks can’t be better than a bunch of Mexicans, I don’t know what the world is coming to. And where is Sonny on this thing? Just because he owns farms I hope he don’t expect to hire a bunch of cheap Mexican labor. Anyway, he sure is quiet.
Anyway, next election I’m going to vote for the Libraritarian cannadate. If he don’t think like jbmlaw and favor letting everybody into this country. Its a awful situation and a fine fix these people up in Washington has got us in.
By getalife
May 21, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this
Well “lies”,
My family migrated from Sicily and did it legally at Ellis Island like all of the legal immigrants back then. I was born here and am a real American.
Not Cuba limy.
By HAROLD
May 21, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this
THE CORRUPTED DRUNKEN LEADERS OF THE COUNTRY ARE SURRENDERING THE NATION TO MEXICO!
NRA, YOU CLAIMED YOU NEEDED YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SAVE USA FROM CORRUPTED OFFICIALS! WHERE ARE YOU?????? DONT LET THEM MAKE IT THE USM!
NRA WHERE ARE YOU??? NRA WHERE ARE YOU??? NRA WHERE ARE YOU??? NRA WHERE ARE YOU??? NRA WHERE ARE YOU??? NRA WHERE ARE YOU??? NRA WHERE ARE YOU??? NRA WHERE ARE YOU??? YOU ARE OUR ONLY HOPE!
PUT YOUR “LOBBYISTS” TO WORK!!!
By Realist
May 21, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this
RCM, The legislation came out around midnight Saturday and consists of more than 600 pages. Very few humans on this planet have read the entire thing. Most of us are spekaing from reputable sources who have reported on the “meat” of the bill. I will concede I dont know all the details anymore than anyone else does.
Also, I think your number of 20 million who would require deportation is grossly inflated. If you looked at heads of household model for deportation (exclduing women and children) we are talking probably around 5-6 million, according to estimates. Deport the wage earner and head of household, and the rest get themsevles back across.
Its amazing to me that some poeple can hold such strong opinions on somehting for which they know very little and have done no research whatsover.
By Tommy
May 21, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this
Amelia, not one person here today has really been able to mount a rational argument to anything that you said. But as sure as I’m lurking on this blog today, before the day is done, somebody will trot out the old “preserving the American culture” argument. Then we can get down to what alot of thems true objections are.
By HAROLD
May 21, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
Rep. Ben Harbin is taht guy on the ajc.com front page. some fancy republican guy. he has already checked into rehab for sure.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
AmeliaThat “sheer number” excuse can be done away with as Rick and I have explained. It would also keep more from crossing over. As to the fairness issue tell that to those who have waited in line to come here. Political correctness has now become the law.Just as realist and I have stated before;many of these illegals do not intend to stay here.Just long enough to make the money they want while draining our country. This bill will not work. None of the laws will be enforced. It will be pure Amnesty. And lets face it;the next 20 million will receive the same treatment.Go ahead break our laws,amnesty will be yours.
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
maggot brain
no olives on my pizza … OK greaseball??!!
and learn to spell ‘limey’ correctly cut and run coward!!
By alexander the great
May 21, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
immigration violations = civil violations
civil violations = monetary fines
amnesty = no penalties/ no fees/ free clearance
immigration reform= fines/penalties/
By alexander the great
May 21, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this
immigration violations = civil violations
civil violations = monetary fines
amnesty = no penalties/ no fees/ free clearance
immigration reform= fines/penalties/
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
RCH, what is it that you are not understanding here. They are going to the back of the line as it applies to green cards and citizenship. Listen to what Chertoff said RCH. They are staring at an 8 to 13 year wait for green cards and citizenship. ONCE AGAIN! WhAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE? Gives a viable alternative to this bill RCH.
By rarringt
May 21, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
Good afternoon all,
First, welcome back, Realist. It’s nice to have you back, and I noticed the discussion improved decidedly after you joined in.
Back on topic. The “war on immigration” sounds a lot like other rhetorical “wars.” You know, the Wars on Poverty, Drugs, Terrorism, etc…. They all inevitably end the same way: substantial time, energy, effort and funds wasted, and comparatively little to show for it.
The problem isn’t the idea. There’s nothing wrong with keeping track of who’s coming in and out of the country, and my thoughts are that immigrants, through the massive cheap labor pool they provide, probably give more benefit that they take (as a result of occasional trips to Grady Hospital to mend the broken arm received from building your house addition - at a steep discount).
Besides, supply-side enforcement has never been very effective. The only way to handle such an issue is on the demand side.
Don’t fine illegals. Steeply fine - and imprison - those who hire them. That includes growers, builders, restauranteurs, and yes, even those who hire them to be domestics.
Once an environment is created that is so toxic to hiring them in the first place, you won’t have to worry about immigrants. No job = no incentive to come.
Of course, the cost of your house, meals, clothes, products, services, and other items will increase by at least 30%, but at least we’ll be rid of them….
By Realist
May 21, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
Amelia, By the way, Im sorry for your traffic woes since you came to America. You sound as though you have had a rough go of it. We have some very nice driving schools you may want to look in to.
By getalife
May 21, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this
I think it is a slap in the face of those waiting for legal immigration.
Why not build an Ellis Island south?
Why not share the costs with the Mexican government and lobby them for jobs for their people?
Who will enforce the touchback and collect the money owed ?
The computer system does not work. How much will this actually cost. Will the employers pay fines?
This is a complicated issue and our government just wants cheap labor and not border security.
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this
@ Tommythederangedtranny
HA HA HA HA HA
that was fooking hilarious!!!
got any more witless gems like that. Amelia has been systematically slaughtered on this subject repeatedly. When faced with very awkward facts last week she just resorted to an emotive load of abusive racebaiting bollocks. NO one but an extrachromosomed leftist nutter takes her illegal apologist sh!te seriously!!
ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL!! It is perfectly possible to deport several million illegals - treat the unwanted, uninvited illegal mexican ones here exactly the same as the mexican govt treats their hispanic type illegals. Once the widely televised deportations start most of the rest of them will panic and bugger off back to mexico and elsewhere. crack down hard and fast on the employers and landlords and watch them hit the border running. All it takes is the political will … and pandering leftists and cowards like Bush are too spineless to do it!!
See my earlier fact filled detailed posts from last week for the looming socio-economic catastrophe if this poisonous pandering bollocks is passed!!
By getalife
May 21, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this
“lies”
I meant slimy you bloody limey.
NRA enemy combatant.
By getalife
May 21, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this
“lies”
I meant slimy you bloody limey.
NRA enemy combatant.
Gitmo is your destination.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this
rarringt, Agree whole heartedly! If the market can withstand $3.18 gas and continue to see rising demand, so too can it absorb a rise in other things like frutis/veggies and construction. Perhaps, we might even see an improvement in quality in some of these areas.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this
Just curious, does anyone think the current admin and both houses see this bill as a way to bail out a soon to be defunct social security? I do.
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this
deport all illegals now wonders if harold has ever bothered to actually look up the meaning of celebrity as harold perpetrated rather surprisingly alebit partially accurately earlier. after all a politician is hardly a tabloid like ‘celeb’ in the same vapid venomous venal vein as paris thebraindeadslut hilton.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this
Well Realist, I for one did my research. As part of a group that has been lobbying for this bill for over two years I might add. As part of this lobbying effort this group, me included, have met with Senators McCain, Kennedy, and Isackson on 2 occassions. We have known for months that we would get a bill. Straight from the horse’s mouth I might add. It was just a matter of when. And if we don’t get this one we’ll get another one that is better. The closer that it gets to the elections the more urgency there will be. It works like this fellas. 06 showed the Latino vote to be one that can hand over or deny political office. You guys are going to vote republican or democrat. We will support the politicians who support us or go after the ones who don’t. And folks we are 100 million votes for the taking. We flexed our muscle in 06 and we will do it again. Legal Latinos that had no interest in citizenship are now applying in the tens of thousands. Why? To vote. The politicians have done their homework. And so have we. Maybe you just think that you have. Better cram a little harder Realist, cause here we come.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this
Amelia I am speaking about those who don’t go back.The ones who will work here illegally and then leave when they have earned enough money. And how about those who come after illegally.What do you do with them As rringtand I and many others have stated.CUT THE JOBS.They will leave. Then and only then we need to write a bill that works.
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this
maggot brain
being effetely and somewhat illiterately savaged (in cyber space) by a brain dead cowardly greaseball is indeed a rare if trifling honour for this proud right wing commie hating secular conservative.
DEATH TO ALL LIBERALS NOW!!!
Hope you like the - what was it now? - “terroristic” … smirk - threat!!!
By harold
May 21, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this
ben harbin fits the description, or at least among those who actually pay attention to politics anyway
he is a house leader and is on the front page of AJC
if he is not celebrity why would ajc put his allegedly drunken DUI Crash on their front page? huh? the only other way would be if he happened to be an illegal mexican and they were trying to make illegal mexicans look bad
By Realist
May 21, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
Its that attitude right there Amelia that makes me think this bill passing is a one-way ticket to dirt streets and chickens running around everywhere. That latino bravado is simply unearned and mistifying to me. What in Gods name do latinos have, or have you accomplished on any scale, to allow you such arrogance? Surely tequila is good, but what more have you contributed to society?
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
Realist obviuosly you are looking to go personal with the “traffic woes” shot, but actually in the 11 years that I have been driving here I have no tickets. I have also driven in England and Ferance with no problems. Can you drive in Mexico City? I can.
By deegee
May 21, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
Wow, looks like a nerve was struck. Now it gets interesting. Time for some sovereignty.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
By the way Amelia, yes, here you come! And by the millions no less. To what? To be exploited and used like every other immigrant has been. So come one, come all. Sign up for having 30% of your check go to uncle sam. Maybe that reality will send millions back to thier shade tree and sombrero and easy life. Oh no wait, no it wont. We have welfare that people like me pay for. Welcome to the land of the “free”.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this
Mexico City? I simply cant imagine the misfortune that would have to occur to lead me there Amelia.
I simply was taking note of your continued mention of traffic fines and laws in America. Sounded like you had some personal misfortune in that regard. I apologize for the remark.
My prior remarks stand for themselves!
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
deport all illegals now realises that harold’s inability to assimilate older than reading age 10 English is infamously well established on here.
My use of “tabloid” re: the slut Hilton was clear enough, especially in the bantering context of your decidedly lame post about “celebrity jail cells”. Yes the main meaning of celebrity is famous, or well known - but few know who Harbin is -yet virtually every one knows who the slut Hilton is. Happily I dont read the front page of the AlJazeer Constipation. Mexican type illegals make themselves look bad just by being here illegally - and their deliberately under reported rising criminality just adds to the massive problems they bring!!
By Disgusted
May 21, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this
Lucky us! So tftt/deport all illegals now/kill all liberals, etc. is a legal immigrant. If I could remember how, I would do a hand-stand.
Just what we need: another jingoistic, arrogant neocon ready to undo the constitution and send us into hopeless debt and endless war. No wonder England didn’t want him. Can life possibly get any better?
By rarringt
May 21, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this
RCH and others,
Keep in mind that “cutting the jobs” is not so easy. There are many who would to a cost/benefit analysis and determine that the rewards outweigh the risks.
In addition, scores of a new breed of enforcement officer would have to be hired to fully investigate and prosecute these employers. Keep in mind, this isn’t limited to the dishwashers at Joel and Trois. Homeowners who hire domestics would also be targeted.
I don’t think Jim, jbm and Co. would much appreciate seeing the missus being dragged down to the county lockup for having an illegal “help” her take care of the house or mow the lawn.
Further, our shortsighted non-policies have resulted in creating a society that can’t function without illegal workers. Unless, of course, some of the folks on here want to help with the grape harvest or butchering meat….
Which is why such reform will fail. Which is why we’re wasting our time.
A few months ago, an african american newborn was celebrated as this country’s 300 millionth citizen (A very nice asian american man was number 200 million.)
In reality, BNIA (the new INS) believes number 300,000,000 walked into Arizona sometime last November. Chances are, he are she isn’t going back home, because in their mind, they are home.
And we all, through patronizing business that we know (or should know) employ illegals, bear some responsibility for that.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this
* Amelai* I think the 100 million vote is a number that is pretty strong.I think this topic might wake up those who don’t vote year after year; urging them to vote against any politician who votes for this bill.People tend to vote their pocketbooks. When you reach your hand there people get upset I also am hearing anger from other minorities against this bill;especially African-Americans who feel jobs are being taken away from them. They are also a strong voteing block that I think you have forgotten about.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
I cant find anything to disagree with you on rarringt. Both politcal parties have too much to lose to strong arm these immigrants or those who hire them. Its a tough call. As I said earlier, I favor the bill pretty much in its current form, if we fund the enforcement and border control aspect to the fullest.
Estimates I heard being thrown around on the senate floor were another 200 Million immigrants over the next 20 years if the current bill passes. Thats up from 20 million that would be allowed under current law. Here we are trying to lessen demand on foreign oil and slow the greenhouse effect. What does another 200million gas guzzling Americans do to that plan?
By Van
May 21, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this
Amelia,
Simple set of questions.
1) what would you do with those that used stolen or false SSN’s or using some elses green card registration number to work?
2) What would you do with those that would evade taxes?
3) How would you treat someone that uses a false or stolen SSN’s to pay taxes.
4) How would handle the numbers of folks coming here with TB or other communicable diseases.
Just a few simple question, I would like to have a few simple answers.
By rarringt
May 21, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this
Latino contributions:
1959-Dr. Severo Ochoa wins the Nobel Prize for his discovery of RNA (ribonucleic acid)
1986-Dr. Franklin Chang-Díaz, the first Hispanic astronaut. Followed by Sydney Gutiérrez (1990) and Dr. Ellen Ochoa (1993).
Advancements in hydrology and agriculture dating back six centuries, which lay the foundations for modern agribusiness.
Salsa (the dance and the dip), which is my cutesy way of saying that latino art, history, literature and overall culture has permeated virtually every aspect of our society, which is a good thing. Latinos are fun, lively, vivacious people.
Cesar Chavez.
Bill Richardson
Rita Moreno, circa 1966 - wow
That’s off the top of my head. Suffice to say, they’ve made their mark.
By Southern Democrat
May 21, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this
Amelia & RCH,
This issue, again, is so interesting to me because I cannot BELIEVE how foolhardy the GOP is being. If Hispanics and Latinos view the Democrats as delivering this bill, they could shift their support to that party.
Hispanics make up close to 35% of the population and growing very, very rapidly throughout the country. African-Americans make up roughly 12% of the population concentrated in urban areas and the South.
It’s a simple matter of demographics: Hispanics can turn the tide of an election and African-Americans cannot. The Democrats are basically conceding the white Southern vote due to its paradigmatic shift to the right. The only thing that will win the South back for the Party of FDR is the Hispanic vote.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this
rringt How about a Million dollar per count and prison time for the CEO and or owner.Enforce that and it would stop. I agree you would need a new type of enforcement officer,but just think of how much money we would safe by not having to build a fence.Also retrain the agents we already have;they certainly are not effective now. I advocate an employment pool were the Missus and other employers can go to hire screened workers and if they don’t,Yes send them to jail.You are right we have made these workers illegal ,now lets make them legal!
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this
Lucky us! So tftt/deport all illegals now/kill all liberals, etc. is a legal immigrant. If I could remember how, I would do a hand-stand.
cheers for paying attention to my witty new change my i.d. like the liberal scum on here constantly do bollock chops.
and make sure that very drunken celebratory hand stand is at the top of spaghetti junction at @ 5pm on a weekday.
I am a citizen of two nations - with a US passport and a UK passport.
By jbmlaw
May 21, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this
Heck, rarringt @ 2:01, I’m worried about the missus being dragged down to the county lock up for driving 56 on I-285 (you know, “Illegal is illegal…”) The only thing saving her now is the fact that she won’t get that close to the perimeter. Have a great afternoon, we appreciate your gentle humor.
By van's a nose picker
May 21, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this
Duuuhhh, what??
By Realist
May 21, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this
Touche rarringt. :)
I think if you look at accomplishments vs. percent of population, its terribly askew, but I digress at the risk of sounding hateful.
I also recall reading just the other day that Mexico is in the top 3 nations with the most Billionaires in the world. I thought that was telling. The have’s in Mexico apparently could give a rats behind about the have nots. I suppose thats why they want to come here. Here we are forced to give a rats a* (and our money) about the have nots, like or not.
By jbmlaw
May 21, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this
Dear Southern @ 2:16, I join your opinion without reservation.
By deport all illegals now
May 21, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
I just had the smallish pleasure of telling Isakson’s office that he has lost our votes if he carries on this pandering to illegals and business owners, the young guy was polite and admitted he’d had a load of calls today about this issue, complaining about the support for this poisonous immigration bill. Hopefully he and Chambliss will be skeered enough into a humiliating public reversal!!
By Ms Writer
May 21, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
Amelia:
Ok, so if they give illegal aliens amnesty, this means that illegal aliens now legal will have employment rights. Employment rights give the individual the right to form unions. The illegal aliens who would then be legal would demand fair wages…do you think that big business would actually go for this?? I think the misconception is that if you disagree with the plight of the illegal alien you are seen as racist. Many of you fail to mention that they completely drain resources. If most were coming here at least attempting to learn the language and not need social services, they would be welcomed with opened arms.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
Realist I read that somewhere too.Maybe if all those illegals from Mexico(They are all not from there) demanded and received from there own govt. like they do ours and received would not want to come here.Because they use real guns in Mexico(drug dealers) and paper ones here,( The IRS,take money from me and you) that will never happen. By the way I think my wife would look good in Orange. Maybe your wife,mine,and Paris Hilton( She wants amnesty too) could discuss the merits of leaving the American Express card at home while in lockup! LOL.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this
By Realist
May 21, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this
Mexico City? I simply cant imagine the misfortune that would have to occur to lead me there Amelia.
I simply was taking note of your continued mention of traffic fines and laws in America. Sounded like you had some personal misfortune in that regard. I
And I was just taking note of your continued mention of amnesty Realist. No offense taken.
By Van
May 21, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this
van’s a nose picker,
Your grossly ignorant of the ramifications of giving legal status to serial law breakers.
It appears that if you falsified information to get a Georgia drivers license, you will be forgiven. I think we (citizens) should all do the same thing and see if we get treated the same way.
Also, when you go and get your next name tag job, make up a SSN and see what happens.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
By Southern Democrat
May 21, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this
Amelia & RCH, This issue, again, is so interesting to me because I cannot BELIEVE how foolhardy the GOP is being. If Hispanics and Latinos view the Democrats as delivering this bill, they could shift their support to that party.
And that is exactly the point I have been trying to make to these guys. My party is more worried right now today about the Latino vote than they are worried about their own right wing. They can take the right right wingers for granted. We will go after politicians of both parties. Those that have tried to use Latinos to pander for votes from the racist element in this state will be targets. I for one can’t wait for the day that Chip Rogers gets brave enought to come out of that safe seat he’s in to try for higher office. That is going to be lots of fun.
By Randy
May 21, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
Where the hell are all these underpaid illegals gonna get $5,000 to pay the fine for being here illegally?
If they can’t come up with the doe will we send them home until they do?
What a fine mess a bunch of negligent politicians have gotten us into.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
And Van, you would do the same thing to provide a decent life for your family were you in their circumstance. If you wouldn’t you’d not be much of a man would you?
By Realist
May 21, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this
I can certainly understand your focus on the word amnesty, and how that sentiment would work decidedly against your cause, but if you go back and read again, I havent really been screaming amnesty.
I wonder if you even know why you are so focused on that word and so defensive? I think its because you know as well as I do that this bill is amnesty and its the only thing thats going to work. Your cause isnt helped by calling amnesty because it riles the wolves, but amesty is exactly what it is Amelia. I have siad I dont disagree with it, I just hope we can address what to do when the immigrants fail to adhere to the new restrictions and pay the fines. Then what???
By sean wineburger
May 21, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this
Link: here’s my long-winded opinion - I somewhat agree that we should all withhold our judgement on this issue, but it would appear, and almost so plainly as to be disconcerting, that our Congress is taking a problem that they are ultimately responsible for, and making it much much worse. Anybody else ready for a clean sweep of the executvie and legislative branch in ‘08? I know some 10 year olds that could do a better job than these dumb*es.
By melo
May 21, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/05/21/0521harbin.html
The MORAL MAJORITY continues to LEAD,chasing women at the World Bank and Partying till the wee hours of the morning.
Just call urself a conservative in America and u become GOD’s Child!!!
By RCH
May 21, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this
Amelia So your saying its right to provide for your family by stealing from another?
By Realist
May 21, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this
Hey Amelia, Guess what would happen to Van and I if we identified a market need or a weakness to exploit in Mexico, and snuck in and started a business or started sellings goods, and sending the money back here to our families? Go ahead, take a guess.
By Amber
May 21, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this
First of all, Theresa was right. If you gotta pay a fine ($5,000) for being in the country illegally before you can be eligible for a Visa or Green Card, then it ain’t amnesty. $5,000 is a significant penatlty to low-income workers.
Second, rarringt is right. Crack down on employers and the reduced demand will help to resolve the problem. This can be accomplished by consistently concentrating our limited resources on punishing the largest employers (agriculture, food processing, textiles, etc.) first and setting the fines such that it’s more expensive to hire an undocumented worker than it is not to (nobody needs to go to jail).
Third, on the supply side, South Americans don’t really want to leave their homes and families to work and live in the U.S. They’d rather find secure, well-paying jobs where they are. Since the U.S. is one of the biggest customers, if not the biggest, for most developing countries, we’re in a position to make demands with regard to labor laws (no children, minimum wages, safe working conditions etc.) If we make such demands (via our trade agreements) and enforce them, developing countries will comply and the supply of workers who want to come to the U.S. will be reduced. (It also reduces the benefit to American companies to relocating operations south of the border.)
Last, too many undocumented workers are depressing wages. Having said that, we provide way to few visas to fill vacancies for low income jobs (about 5,000 per year — should be tens of thousand per year). The reason for this obvious discrepency is to … you guessed it … allow undocumented workers to depress wages. The result is that we’re jeapordizing national security, allowing families to risk their lives crossing the dessert and sneaking in in tractor-trailers to keep wages down. Simply issuing the correct number of visas for low-income workers who want to come here to work and pay taxes, will help the cause as well.
The bottom line is, we have to develop a plan that is win/win all the way around. The plan currently under consideration is a plan that will not solve problem with regard to low-skill workers (even with a wall). That’s a shame.
By spaceman109
May 21, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this
if all immigrants….legal or illegal….were deported by the end of the year….within 5 years time, we would be dependent on foreign imports for at least half our vegetables.
why? because amerikanskis are not inclined to get out there in the open air and help harvest crops;that sort of work is too dirty, too hot and too physical. those work conditions are way too tough for the present generation of soft amerikanskis. everyone wants to work white-collar jobs in air-conditioned cmofort. very very few would settle for anything less no matter the pay. why else would a reasonably well-paid trade like welding have such a hard time attracting young amerikanskis?
so it goes….
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this
Actually Realist if they called it amnesty and passed the bill that would be fine with me. If they ditched the fine and made it real amnesty that would be fine with me. We will get a bill. Even if this one isn’t the one, the closer it gets to the election the better the deal the immigrants will get. The antis better jump on this one before they get one they will really hate.
By Van
May 21, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
Hey Van, this is Van. I am another Van. There are not many of us around. I have heard your name mentioned on this post before.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
Amber, You have some excellent ideas. The complexity comes in when you begin to hold accountable those who do not conform to your great ideas. This is the aprt everyone seems to want to sidestep. Large numbers are not going to pay the $5000 or even come forward. How do we deal with these millions of immigrants who wish to continue to dodge the system? At some point, the trucks either have to be loaded up and sent south, or we grant amnesty. I think we know what the answer will be. We have been invaded and held hostage for votes. Just as the terrorist ahve exploited our weakness caused by division down party lines, so too have the Mexicans. Let freedom ring.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
May 21, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this
I just finished emailing our two soldout Senators, AGAIN! I hope that you have too. I’m absolutely sick & tired of our politicians selling their souls to big business, at the expense of our children’s and grandchildren’s futures. It’s time to get off our A*******e$ folks and let these folks know how we feel. Call them, email them, write them. Let them know how mad we are. No, Sen. Chambliss, it’s not that I “don’t understand the bill”. The problem for you is that I DO UNDERSTAND THE BILL!!! I understand whose side you and Sen. Isakson are on, and it’s not the LEGAL people of Georgia. You might want to clean off your nose Sen. Chambliss. You’ve been following ole George W a little big too closely. That might be why you can’t smell what’s stinking in this AMNESTY BILL.
By Ms Writer
May 21, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
It has all been planned from the beginning.
Remarks by President George W. Bush and President Vicente Fox of Mexico in Joint Press Conference Rancho San Cristobal San Cristobal, Mexico
2:37 P.M. (L)
PRESIDENT FOX: Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. President. This morning I have held very productive and cordial talks with the President of the United States, Mr. George W. Bush. We have agreed on a set of principles and values to provide our relationship as neighbors with more constructive dynamics of more intense cooperation, in order to unfold all the potential of our bilateral relations.
The fact that the President, George Bush’s first foreign visit has our country as its destination is a clear message of the interest his administration places on strengthening links with Mexico. At the same time, it is quite a distinction.
This starting point is very encouraging, so that both Mexicans and Americans, together, to inaugurate an era of shared prosperity together. I also acknowledge President Bush’s demonstration of friendship by coming to Guanajuato, the cradle of Mexico’s independence. And I am particularly grateful for his greeting my mother, Dona Mercedes, as well as for his visit to my house — his house — here in San Cristobal.
Let me tell you, Mr. President, that you will always be welcome in this, your home — or, in your language, President, you know that we consider you a friend of Mexico, a friend of Mexican people, and a friend of mine.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir.
PRESIDENT FOX: The agreements we have reached today are embodied in the document that we have, and we ratified our commitment to values of democracy and the promotion of human rights, as well as the aim of the fruits of development reach all sectors of our society.
The global and hemispheric agenda was also an important part of our talks, as is fitting in a mature dialogue between two prominent members of the international community. We have identified a renewed will for cooperation to design, together with our Canadian partners, a region guided by the search for shared prosperity.
We, the Presidents of Mexico and the United States, have the favorable circumstance of beginning our respective mandates simultaneously. This enables us to project our common objectives with a long-term vision and to undertake negotiations in areas that require a decisive and systematic impetus from the two governments.
Mr. President Bush, the spirit in which we have conducted this first working meeting marks the beginning of a novel stage in our bilateral relations. I am certain that we will be able to take advantage of the historic opportunity we have today to set out on the way to a century of shared prosperity. We will face this challenge on the basis of mutual trust, with a fresh and creative vision to advance in the topics of our bilateral agenda.
Once again, welcome, and this is your home.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Muchos gracias, amigo, el Presidente de Mexico. Su recepcion tan calida refleja el grande amistad entre nuestros pueblos. Me hace sentir que estoy entre familia. Thank you very much.
It’s a great honor to come to Mexico as this important nation enjoys a new birth of freedom, signaled by President Fox’s election. Our meetings today have been a really good opportunity to renew our personal friendship and the friendship between Mexico and the United States.
Mexico is the first foreign country I have visited as President, and I intended it to be that way. Our nations are bound together by ties of history, family, values, commerce and culture. Today, these ties give us an unprecedented opportunity. We have a chance to build a partnership that will improve the lives of citizens in both countries.
I came here today to seek President Fox’s views on how we can go about building on our partnership. We enjoyed a warm and substantive and frank dialogue on the many issues that shape the relationship between America and Mexico.
We talked about strengthening our trade relationship, which offers hope and opportunity on both sides of our border. We talked about how our two nations can work together to meet our current and future energy needs. We exchanged ideas about safe and orderly migration, a policy that respects individuals on both sides of the border. We talked about expanding educational opportunities. We talked about what we can do together to fight drug trafficking and other types of organized crime.
We also talked about what we can do together to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity throughout the entire hemisphere. I told President Fox that building a hemisphere of freedom will be a fundamental commitment of my administration. We both look forward to discussing these ideas with other hemispheric leaders in Quebec in April at the Summit of the Americas.
We are welcoming a new day in the relationship between America and Mexico. Each nation has a new President, and a new perspective. Geography has made us neighbors; cooperation and respect will make us partners. And the promise of the partnership was renewed and reinvigorated today.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT FOX: If I understood correctly, we’re going to take questions in Spanish for the Mexican press, and some questions in English for the American press. So we’ll go first to the women first, and here we’ll take the Spanish question first.
Q I have two questions, one for the President of Mexico. We’ve spoken about new agreements and a new path on migration issues. What has been the advancements on the two topics as you — you’re campaign to open the border for the free transit of people and to have the free trade agreement in the same way that the European Community has done it?
You talked to President Bush about the amnesty, about the illegal aliens in the United States. I have a question for President Bush. What is the message that you want to send right now, what does the United States want to send to the world as a message with the new bombing of Iraq? And, above all, why, Mr. Bush, at this point, when you are establishing a dialogue with the President of Mexico? Why? Is this a beginning of a new war?
PRESIDENT FOX: Actually, we discussed amply the migration issues that we have. But this is not a meeting in which decisions or details are going to be reached, because they do not belong in the power of — the executive power, as such, because they have to have the participation of other groups.
We have spoken on migration from the viewpoint of our countrymen that are in the United States, and we have spoken about the possibilities of working on agreements of temporary legal work and employment. We have spoken on the firm idea that we have of fighting violence against immigrants, and to work based on the law, and to see how the coyotes and all the people that will be taking these people — or the polleros taking our illegal workers into U.S. territory.
We have spoken of a long-term vision and approach and constructive approach on this topic. And perhaps here, the most important thing will be presented by President Bush later on. But certainly there is a new attitude, there is a new way of approaching things, much more positive approach to things on this issue of migration.
The conclusion has been to create a commission at the highest level, as it was read in the Guanajuato Proposal, to begin and to discuss and to advance on this topic on very concrete steps. I believe this is a great advancement on what we had before.
PRESIDENT BUSH: In answer to part B of your question, the United States is engaged in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. We will remain so. Since 1991, our country has been enforcing what’s called a no-fly zone. A routine mission was conducted to enforce the no-fly zone. And it is a mission about which I was informed and I authorized. But, I repeat, it is a routine mission, and we will continue to enforce the no-fly zone until the world is told otherwise.
Ron.
Q Sir, as you say, this is the first military action you’ve taken as President of the United States. I’m wondering whether it signals a hardening of the U.S. position towards Iraq. And specifically, is it your goal to drive Saddam Hussein from power? And, secondly, are you putting Saddam on notice today that American military action will be more frequent or more forceful than it was before you became President?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Fournier, Saddam Hussein has got to understand that we expect him to conform to the agreement that he signed after Desert Storm. We will enforce the no-fly zone, both south and north. Our intention is to make sure that the world is as peaceful as possible. And we’re going to watch very carefully as to whether or not he develops weapons of mass destruction, and if we catch him doing so we’ll take the appropriate action.
Q Mr. President, President Bush, welcome to Mexico. We will be waiting for you in Cancun. The question is on globalization; the question, support to Mexico. And another question, certification in Mexico, will it continue? Will it disappear forever? Would you trust our friend, Fox?
PRESIDENT BUSH: The question is on drug certification and really about our relations with President Fox. I trust your President. He’s the kind of man you can look in the eye and know he’s shooting straight with you. I appreciate the fact that he was a one-time governor. I’ve got kind of partiality to governors.
We need to work together on the drug issue. One of the reasons why drugs are shipped — the main reason why drugs are shipped through Mexico to the United States is because United States citizens use drugs. And our nation must do a better job of educating our citizenry about the dangers and evils of drug use.
Secondly, I believe there is a movement in the country to review all the certification process. I’m certainly going to take the message back to the members of Congress that I firmly believe that President Fox will do everything in his power to root out the drug lords and to halt drug trafficking as best as he possibly can.
As you know, he made some very bold and courageous statements about extradition. He showed unique leadership on that issue. It certainly caught my attention. And I believe when the American people and the members of Congress hear this bold action that he’s willing to take, they will understand what I know, that he is committed to battling the drug trade.
Jim — Steve, sorry. You are? (Laughter.) We’ve got you out of order — I know you’re Steve. Stefan, hombre muy bueno.
Q Sir, now that Republicans have told you there are not enough votes for your tax plan in the Senate, how do you proceed from here? And do you consider cutting the size of it?
PRESIDENT BUSH: His question was about our tax plan. I don’t agree with that assessment, that there are not enough votes in the Senate. I believe when it’s all said and done, we’re going to get a tax bill out of the House and the Senate that will be at the level I think it ought to be. I know there is a lot of speculation about members, but it’s early, it’s early in the process.
Washington, Mr. President, has got a unique way of asking Presidents to negotiate with themselves. And that’s not what is going to happen in this administration. We’ll get a tax package because it’s the right thing for the American people.
Ours, Mr. President, is getting ready to submit a budget that will set priorities. Education will be a priority; health care for our citizens will be a priority; setting aside Social Security — all the payroll taxes for Social Security will be a priority. We’ve still got money left over and I want to pass some of it back to the people who pay the bills, in order to make sure our economy does not drag.
And the President and I talked about economic growth. He knows exactly what I know, that if our economy were to slow significantly, it would affect our abilities to see the benefits of free trade; it would affect the Mexican economy.
And so I want to assure our friends from Mexico that we will put fiscal and monetary — I have nothing to do with monetary policy, of course — but fiscal policy in place that will affect economic growth, because it is beneficial not only for our people, but for the Mexican people.
Look, to answer your question directly, we are going to get a good tax cut through and I think it is going to be the size I’m suggesting.
Q To President Fox, since you two are working together on several actions that you want to undertake together in a short future and also in the long-term future, do you support the military actions like the ones like the United States is doing, bombing Iraq? Thank you.
PRESIDENT FOX: I do not have a position or a statement on that topic, specifically because this will be done through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the future.
It’s your turn.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Short answer, Mr. President. (Laughter.) Campbell Brown.
Q Much has been made of you choosing Mexico as your first foreign trip. But it is also causing consternation among the European allies and Canada that you are going to put a greater emphasis here at the expense of those countries. What do you say to that, please?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I appreciate that question. First, I met with Prime Minister Chretien and assured him that a vision of — a foreign policy that understands good policy starts in the neighborhood is a vision that goes both north and south.
I would hope that nations around the world, and leaders, would understand the logic behind saying that good foreign policy, good relations must be firm on our borders. I can’t think of anything more logical and more common-sensical than to understand our hemisphere which can be and will be bound by freedom and free markets and free trade is in the interests of our people.
We’ll have a foreign policy as one that engages the world. I’ve rejected isolationism, as you know, and protectionism. Ours is going to be an active foreign policy. It’s going to be consistent and firm; one that starts, though, by building friendships — in this case, renewing a friendship. And it should send a strong signal to all nations who watch that if you’re our friend, we’ll be your friend. And Mexico is our friend and will remain our friend.
Q Thank you very much, Presidents Bush and Fox. A question for President Fox. Do you think that it is not an improper gesture in this for a visit that the recent bombing of Iraq is one that is attracting the attention, and would put a shade or a shadow on this meeting here in Guanajuato?
PRESIDENT FOX: I see no reason why we should connect one event with the other one. Here we are in the process of building up and constructing a strategy to foster the economic and human development of a complete region that is formed by three countries that have been associated under a free trade agreement, and the relationship between the United States and Mexico that has proven already that has made advancements, very constructively.
The levels of trade we have are really fantastic and they are the envy of many people. Many people have never thought that in the year of 2001 with a trade balance of $250 billion. This has meant development for the United States; it has meant employment in the United States. It has meant development and employment in Mexico, as well.
This is what has allowed us to reduce substantially the level of poverty in Mexico. In the last four years, more than 4 million poor people have gone beyond extreme poverty levels. This is what we have invested on, to take these people above this level. And all the time that we have invested discussing these strategic points allow us to see that there is a possibility of going ahead to get more benefits from good relationships and to be true partners toward prosperity, and to be true friends and to be true neighbors.
And this purpose is something that has been clearly stated today and we’re very pleased with it. And we are full of confidence that we can see the future with a more optimistic approach as of today’s meeting.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Jim.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Apologies to you, Presidente Fox, for not asking a question about the U.S. and Mexico. But, President Bush, if I may, another question about Iraq. As we understand it, this was in response to violations that have happened over several weeks, perhaps several months. What prompted you to take this decision at this time?
PRESIDENT BUSH: The commanders on the ground, rightly, make the decision as to how to enforce the no-fly zone. I want to assure those who don’t understand U.S. policy that this is a routine mission. Some of the missions require the Commander-in- Chief to be informed. This was such a mission. It is not the first time it has happened, regrettably so.
We will continue to enforce the no-fly zones. The no-fly zones are enforced on a daily basis. It is a part of a strategy, and until that strategy is changed, if it is changed at all, we will continue to enforce the no-fly zone.
But, anyway, the decision is made on the ground, Jim.
Q I would like to ask you whether there was a petition from the U.S. government as far as oil is concerned, or any requests for support on electricity and oil?
PRESIDENT FOX: No, not specifically. We spoke about the California problems, by itself, and, yes, we are speaking about the possibility of creating an energy policy that will be common to all the northern part of the country and into Canada, the United States and Mexico and part of Central America, to try to create a synergy or a synergism so that each one of the countries would benefit from all these policies, because there is energy that we need to import in Mexico that we do not have enough, and at this moment we know in some part of the U.S. territory, this is happening, too. And the same could happen to the Central American countries.
Here, what is important is to have a common policy whereby no one takes advantage of the other. But the other way around it, and it’s a win-win situation for everyone, that everyone would be benefitted from the organization of an energy plan for the benefit of all the continent of, in this case, the northern part of the Americas.
We also spoke about water problems at the border zones. These are common problems that we have, and if we administer and manage these common problems in a timely manner, in a positive and optimistic way, we could mutually be benefitted in the water problems that we have at the border. And this is something that obviously we discussed here.
I believe this is the foundation that we laid down for our project today. And we are trying with goodwill to remove all the obstacles and to take advantage of all the opportunities that we have. And, certainly, today we saw more opportunities than obstacles. And therefore, I do ratify that this makes us see the near future with much more optimism than before.
Q Mr. President, when you met with President Fox in August in Dallas, you talked about the possibility of finding ways to share energy resources. With the current climate in America — energy prices high, supplies low — can you tell me how you pushed that issue today and what sense of progress you have?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, I appreciate that. The question was about energy policy. First of all, good energy policy is one that encompasses not only Mexico, but Canada. We must think about energy shortages and energy demands in regards to our hemisphere.
Secondly, the President and I did discuss how best to share resources to the benefit of both countries. We talked about the possibility of exploration in Canada and the United States and Mexico. A cubic foot of gas imported into Mexico is one, obviously, less able to burn in the United States. It is a hemispheric issue and it needs to be elevated to the presidential level.
We did talk about power, the generation of power; the possibility as to whether or not in Baja, for example, more power could be added to the Western Grid. It’s an obvious opportunity, if possible. Now, there are some bottlenecks, and one of the things we need to do is address those bottlenecks, one of which is the ability to transmit power from south to north.
Now, there is pipeline availability. And we’re going to need to — so when we talk about an energy policy at home, it is also in the context of Mexico and Canada. This is an issue where we need to continue the dialogue. It’s an issue that is going to affect the people of Mexico and the people of the United States if we don’t recognize that we need more supply.
We can conserve better; there’s no question about it. But demand is far outstripping supply, which is creating a real problem for the working people of our respective countries. And so this subject, rightly so, took quite a bit of time in our meeting, and is going to take more time down the road.
We have a great opportunity to come together and have a strategy that honors Mexico and honors its sovereignty and, at the same time, recognizes that people are what matters most. And we’ve got to make sure our people have got the energy necessary to be able to find jobs and find work.
PRESIDENT FOX: We are finished. Thank you very much for coming to the press conference. Good luck and thank you.
PRESIDENT BUSH: They just want to get in the picture.
END 3:05 P.M. (L)
By Realist
May 21, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
Spaceman, I put to you that if there was a mass deportation, that technology and innovation would quickly step to the forefront and solve the human worker shortage. The technology actually already exists, business owners and farmers simply dont want to lay out the costs. Yes consumers would pay more, but it end the grand scheme of things, it would largely be worth it and the market could withstand it, IMHO.
By Najeh Davenpoop
May 21, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
I’m no political expert, so can someone please explain this to me? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Democrats are supposed to be the party of the working class, and the Republicans are supposed to be the party of businesses, am I right? So wouldn’t it then follow that Democrats should be against illegal immigration, since it takes away jobs from American workers and drives wages down, while Republicans should be for amnesty for illegal immigrants, since it reduces costs for businesses? Unless I’m missing something here, it doesn’t make much sense to me that it’s exactly the opposite.
By General Manager
May 21, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
Ms Writer you are assuming that the market sets the “fair” wage. It doesn’t. In a global economy the emplyer or industry sets the “fair” wage. There is a proliferation of H1B visas in this country for one reason. The entry level wage for an engineer with a degree from Georgia Tech used to average 55,000.00 per year. In most cases when the employer claims to be unable to find a qualified American for certain positions, it is because the skilled American has turned down the wage offered by the employer. An experienced and qualified engineer from India will jump all over the offered wage. Americans are fooling themselves if they ever think that the market will dictate wages ever again. The global economy allows employers to set the wage and believe me it is going ever lower. Soon engineers in Argentina that will work in that country for 7500.00 per year will be jumping all over the $35,000.00 they can get here. Why do you think business asks for an increase in H1Bs every year. In reality, the anti-immigrant crowd should be going after the H1Bs. Those are the ones threatening the American middle class.
By Ms Writer
May 21, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
Mexico is a rich country..why can’t they take responsibility of their own poor and illiterate? You don’t see mass droves of poor Americans moving to Canada, even with the free healthcare…why is it ok?
By Fat Cat Republican
May 21, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this
Me and all of my rich, fat-cat, Republican business friends and our painfully thin wives who play tennis and shop all day just get the biggest laugh when we get together at our country clubs out of how we’ve been able to co-opt you religous types, bigots and a few actually decent people who happen to just watch too much Fox News into supporting our Republican business agenda of out-sourcing as many of your jobs as we can and giving the rest of your jobs to poorly paid illegal workers. Why do you think our bought-and-paid-for friends Bush, Chaney, Chamblis, Isakson and the rest trot out gay marriage and terrorism every two years and then do nothing about those things? It’s so we can get you to vote our hand-picked minions into office so they can do our bidding and make your lives miserable by driving down your wages (for the jobs we can’t send to China or India) so we can make more money! Yum… we love money! It’s not about moral values, fools! We have no morals. It’s all about the campaign contributions. You poor suckers… I mean patriots… don’t make decent campaing contributions, so you really don’t get any say in how the country’s run. You might think you do… and that makes us laugh even harder! Big companies that hire illegals DO make big contributions… so they really have all the say in the world! We love when you vote for politicians who plan to do things that will make your lives harder. Wonder why you lost that factory job that paid $18 an hour plus benefits and are now a stock clerk at Wal-Mart making $6 with no insurance? That’s us and our Republican friends in office. So thanks for laying down and letting us kick you over and over while we line our own pockets (my Republican friends in the oil business are especially happy right now… Gas at $3.50 a gallon! Thank you… yachts and caviar for everyone … except you poor middle class dolts!). Sometimes I like to take $100 bills and just roll around in a big pile of them in my 10 bedroom house in Country Club of the South. So please… keep voting Republican and we’ll keep letting the illegals in, keep sending high-paying manufacturing jobs overseas and we’ll keep getting richer and richer and richer…. ha ha ha… now that’s what us Republicans call patriotism!
By RCH
May 21, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this
As Amelia herself said they will try to unify there voteing block.But I don’t understand! Will they be legal or illegal votes. Will the end justify the means. The politicians are afraid if this block,hence they pander to it letting it get bigger. Simply stop the illegal influx,do not grant legall voteing status to those who came her illegally,and that block will lose its strength.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this
By Realist
May 21, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this
Hey Amelia, Guess what would happen to Van and I if we identified a market need or a weakness to exploit in Mexico, and snuck in and started a business or started sellings goods, and sending the money back here to our families? Go ahead, take a guess.
But this isn’t Mexico is it Realist. But now that you mention it, there are about 100,000 Americans doing just that quite successfully in Mexico. All you need is a Mexican’s name on the paperwork and you’re off to the races. And just like here, the government winks and nods. And guess what Realist, the money earned there is not taxed here until it comes back in. And most American citizens are more than happy to avoid those taxes.
By Killin' Time
May 21, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this
I want to piggy back on Theresa and Amber’s post about the $5,000 fine. As they both said, when you pay a fine — it’s not amnesty. I want to explore this further.
When a corporation is fined millions of dollars, many complain about the unfairness of it all and call for tort reform. On the other hand, Mr. Wooten and others here dismiss the significance of a $5,000 fine imposed on a low income worker. But let’s look at an example to put this proposed fine in perspective.
Most of us have heard about the $2.7 million dollar punitive damage fine that McDonalds had to pay to the elderly woman who suffered third-degree burns (resulting in multiple hospital stays and skin grafts) after spilling McDonald’s coffee on her lap. Now, I don’t remember exactly when this accident occurred, but for the sake of discussion, lets assume it happened in 1996 (11 years ago). That year, McDonalds raked in $7,751,000,000. If you do the math, this woman’s fine was less than ten percent of McDonald’s annual revenue? Less than one percent? In fact, the $2.7 million fine was less than one-tenth of one percent of McDonald’s revenue in 1996 (their annual revenue has more than doubled since then).
On the other hand, a $5,000 fine applied to a low income worker would be in the range of 1/2 to 1/6 of his or her annual income.
My friends, no matter how many times you scream amnesty, and no matter how loud you scream it — there is no amnesty provided in the proposed bill.
Mr. Wooten should know better.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
Killen Time What would you tell all those who waited in line all these years. I am sure most of these people would have gladly spent the $5,00 to jump in the front of the line. And who do you think they are fooling. These people willneverpay any fine.In the end this will be simply amnesty.
By deegee
May 21, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this
Good point, killin’ time and it is not lost on those that understand the bill.
The media and our elected leaders have a golden opportunity over the next few weeks to truly educate the American people on the nuances of immigration law and globalization. Those that have an open mind and want to learn will do so. The Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannitys will continue to toy with with the radical right and play the ratings game by screaming “amnesty!”
By General Manager
May 21, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this
RCH, until this immigration issue began the legal Latino voters in this country that already make up 35% of the voting public were split not so unevenly between the two parties. However the politicians that used us for their own gain by pandering to the racists in this country polarized us into a block that will now vote for our own preservation. We will go after any candidate that tried to fan the flames of racism with us as the target. As I said before, now there are 10s of thousands more legal Latinos that only held green cards that now will become citizens for no other reason than to get the vote. We will defend ourselves with the ballot. So yes, Realist those of us that vote will be legal. And now the pols are scrambling to save these votes that flew away to the other side in 06. Your anger should be directed at the politicians that woke this sleeping giant. Not people that are now determined to use their power at the polls to insure that it never happens again. The Latinos didn’t start this. A handful of politicians did. But we Latinos definately intend to end it.
By BBT
May 21, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this
The US should not trade with Mexico until the Mexican elite creates jobs, education, and social security for their poor and pays for their citizens’ trip back. Fines should be placed on employers for hiring illegals. The solutions that create jobs for Americans yet fairly treat the Mexicans are pretty simple. The devil’s in the details according to Wooten! Any bill written in secret, like the Patriot Act, goes against democracy and Americans’ Constitutional rights. Like the part in the immigration bill that funds detainment facilities for citizens going back to their home country. Apparently these detainment facilities can later be used as concentration camps for American citizens who are classified subjectively as “enemy combatants”.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this
It is amazing to me the false comparisons some of you go to great lengths to propose. To compare the handful of Americans doing business in Mexico with the mass defection of over 20 million mexicans is, well, just assinine.
And to compare a civil negligience lawsuit and resulting settlement to violation of federal immigration laws and fines imposed, is just ridiculous.
I know most of us arent politicians and have probably not taken a single debate class, but please try to stick to the realm of the remotely feasible!
By Pragmatic Republican
May 21, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this
Jim,
I am about as conservative as they come, but understand the politics of DC regarding this situation. Either we are going to do nothing and the problem only gets worse (because sadly it is going to be a LOOONG time until conservatives are controlling the agenda and committee chairman), or try and work the bill to work through the process and get some compromises.
I will also be the first to say that I have talked about this issue with some of the law enforcement in heavy hispanic areas to better understand the issue at hand. While they believe the situation is out of control, they also are realistic that they can not spend their entire time enforcing immigration laws. It just isn’t practical, and most folks that have been deported (and you have to do some awful stuff to get to that point), can get a new ID and identity and will be back across the border by the time the deputy gets home.
So here is our problem… do we either:
A) Have our Senators denounce the bill and do nothing, which will let the Dems really write an amnesty bill for us and our grandkids to deal with, or
B) Try and listen to our two US Senators that have been nothing less than stalwarts on immigration issues during their times in Congress. (Just look at their immigration score cards for proof where both have “A” ratings.)
I am certainly not Karl Rove, but can certainly attest that these Senators probably know what the easier path to stay elected would be (i.e. do nothing but demogogue the bill). That being said, I am glad they are staying relevent to the process and trying to end chain migration; implement a process that will figure out who the bad guys are and get rid of them; and finally to seal the border.
If it were possible to load every illegal up in a Blue Bird bus and send them back where they came from, then by all means, I think they are breaking the law and are criminals. I remember watching the protesting Hispanics in DeKalb county not too long ago and getting infuriated to no end.
I am just terrified, as my grandmomma once told me, that perfection in politics can be the enemy of good.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this
General Manager, You can help end it with one thing. Its called birth control. Continuing to bring babies into this poverty and dire situation at the rate your people do is criminal and wrong by biblical proportions.
By harold
May 21, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
¿Por qué debe importar donde la vagina de su madre fue localizada cuando usted se cayó hacia fuera?
By Curious Observer
May 21, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
In the absence of rigid enforcement of employment and immigration law, it doesn’t matter what bill is passed. We already have laws that require employers to verify legal resident status of employees. Yet, except for a few “show” cases, no employer ever gets arrested for hiring illegal aliens.
It is evident that the US government is complicit in this fraud. When the Social Security Administration gets contributions to the same account from twenty different individuals and does nothing about it, it’s pretty clear that the concern at the US agency level is minimal.
A new immigration law will be enforced as laxly as current law. The truth is that employers of illegals make substantial campaign contributions, and these employers want the government to look the other way. You can raise the fine on illegal immigrants to $100,000 and still not have any effect. No one will collect it, and no illegal alien will be stupid enough to pay it with the knowledge that enforcement of employment law will not occur.
Both major parties are battling for the eventual vote of the current illegals—and the vote of legal immigrants who support the illegals. No matter what immigration bill passes, enforcement will not be there, nor will there be any real beefing up of border security. And expulsion of illegals will not occur. We are arguing the modern equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this
RCH, you really don’t get any of this do you? If 20,000,000 Americans wanted to go there and do that the Mexican government would throw out the red carpet. Why? It’s called greenback dollars RCH. It would be just another infusion of cash that would allow the government there to carry on with business as usual. I will also point out that almost 800,000 Americans have retired in Mexico over the last 5 years. Mexican law prohibits foreigners from owning land and property but guess what? Check out the $250,000.00 houses they live in and own. You can do it too RCH. Any American can. Because the Mexican government is just like ours. All about the money.
By Van
May 21, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this
I just keep reminding myself, in 1,000 years none of this is going to matter any way.
By Killin' Time
May 21, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
RCH,
Your assertion … that the few (very few) low-income workers who were lucky enough to get a work visa would have rather paid a $5,000 fine and risked their lives (and their families lives) by either crossing the dessert, or paying a hundreds (or thousands) to a “coyote” to sneak them in in the back of a tractor-trailor or in a freight train … lacks credibility.
As far as your assertion that “these people” will never paying a fine — under the proposed law, if no fine is paid, then an opportunity for legal status would not be available.
My post wasn’t to argue for or against this bill (I’m against it), but when debating it, we need to be clear on the facts, and when Mr. Wooten and others claim that this bill is offering amnesty, they’re not being truthful.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
General Manager Last I read was that number was 18% legal registered voters.We can’t count green card holders,etc. But it should be the Hispanic community that decries illegal immigration. Did you not wait your turn and play by the rules.When you battle an illegal for a job will your opinion be the same when he receives that job because he is paid under the table?Maybe he won’t even be Latino,maybe Asian, black etc.Will your opinion be the same then? I will always argue that this is an economic issue. Not race.My Indian friends will tell you that they are just as brown as you.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
By RCH
May 21, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
Killen Time What would you tell all those who waited in line all these years. I am sure most of these people would have gladly spent the $5,00 to jump in the front of the line. And who do you think they are fooling. These people willneverpay any fine.In the end this will be simply amnesty.
Have you gone clairvoyent on us RCH. Now you just KNOW that they will never pay a fine. Puhleeeeeeze! Now you are really grabbing at straws. Is that all you got left?
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this
We got our tactics straight out of that manifesto that Carl Rove wrote for the right wing Curious Observer. Pretty effective too it appears. I bet Carl had no idea that he was setting up Latinos to be the next king makers did he?
By RCH
May 21, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this
Well let me see, Under the Regan administration the 3 million that received amnesty would cure the bill.What happened? We can’t even secure the border,so how are we going to collect and enforce these laws. That’s like enforcing 55 on 285!
By General Manager
May 21, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this
Let’s just put it this way RCH. I hate racism with every fiber of my being. And if this bill causes pain and suffering to racist trash, to me the end justifies the means. That crowd has had it coming to them for 150 years. And even you can’t deny that racist scum has latched onto this issue full force. I will accept any amount of collateral damage to get those bigoted racist pieces of pig feces. And I’m not afraid to come out and say that. But they sure are reluctant to come right out and say that race is their problem with these Latinos. Thye are much to cowardly for that.
By Curious Observer
May 21, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this
I’m glad Amelia regards me as “right wing.” See that, TFTT, jbmlaw, Dusty, Van, John D? And here you’ve been unjustly attacking me as a leftist all this time.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this
RCH….you keep saying amnesty. It isn’t amnesty. What is it that you don’t understand about the definition? You are really almost out of gas aren’t you RCH?
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
My sincere apologies Curious Observer. I couldn’t with clear conscience paint anyone with that brush! I am so sorry Curious Observer!
By Realist
May 21, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this
You know its funny. Reading some of the AP stories on the newswire about Mexican reaction to the bill, it would seem Amelia and GM are in the minority. Most see it as something that would continue to ignore, wanting things to remain business as usual, and many just laughed saying they would never pay the $5000. See there is the problem, not skin color, or religion, or race, but the unwillingness to contribute, to assimilate, to pay any price whatsoever for thier freedom. The price that our forefathers and grandparents and uncles and fathers died for, they arent will to work and save a measley $5000.00 for, and better, they laugh at it. What a despeicable attitude. You know, I can sympathize with blacks, they didnt ask for what they got and continue to get. But the Mexican immigrant has squarely spat on the things that we have held dear, and ahve done so under the false sense of security of a liberal and politically correct time in history. It wont last forever my friends. This country has weathered stronger and better than this.
By bordercontrolfirst
May 21, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
For the life of me, I can’t figure you people out. You are (most all) so blinded by hatred of liberals or conservatives that you can’t see that this is not a partisan issue.
This is not a class issue. The upper class and employers of this country want cheap labor. Will the status quo help them or hurt them? (Hint: The will be legal and will have to pay minimum wage and SS)
This is not a race issue. ALL illegals get this deal. Even those who are in this country from the middle east who are currently plotting a Fort Dix type assault.
This is not a partisan issue. This has widespread support from both parties who are pandering for votes. (hint: if the conservative “racists” hate it so much, why are they always the ones to grant amnesty?).
Every single individual will see this differently. Anyone who tries to put the anti or pro people in a box is just a foolish idiot!
As for me, I’m against it. I’m a technology worker. Did you see A. Greenspans comments the other day… how we should import a bunch of new technology workers so that MY pay will not go up? So that the wages of the people who have spent years studying and trying to get ahead in the country can be squashed by Chinese/Indian/middle eastern green card workers?
Immigration reform must be done in steps. FIRST secure the borders. THEN impose penalties on employers who hire illegal workers. FINALLY do the deportation or amnesty or whatever. This has to be the LAST amnesty. After this, more than 1 in 10 Americans will have entered this country illegally to become citizens. That includes the first amnesty. That is 30 million people who do not respect the law, that do not plan on EVER melting in our melting pot, that simply want to bring their way of life… complete with crime, graft, corruption, terrorism, etc… to our country. That is not racist. That is a fact that is fortold by how they got here and what they have done while they hvae been here. More American citizens have died at the hands of illegals in this country in the last 5 years than have died in Iraq. There is rarely a day in metro Atlanta that a citizen is not raped/assaulted/burglarized/killed by illegals in our homes or on our highways.
Have a look right now (and everyday) and see for yourselves.
By bordercontrolfirst
May 21, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this
For the life of me, I can’t figure you people out. You are (most all) so blinded by hatred of liberals or conservatives that you can’t see that this is not a partisan issue.
This is not a class issue. The upper class and employers of this country want cheap labor. Will the status quo help them or hurt them? (Hint: The will be legal and will have to pay minimum wage and SS)
This is not a race issue. ALL illegals get this deal. Even those who are in this country from the middle east who are currently plotting a Fort Dix type assault.
This is not a partisan issue. This has widespread support from both parties who are pandering for votes. (hint: if the conservative “racists” hate it so much, why are they always the ones to grant amnesty?).
Every single individual will see this differently. Anyone who tries to put the anti or pro people in a box is just a foolish idiot!
As for me, I’m against it. I’m a technology worker. Did you see A. Greenspans comments the other day… how we should import a bunch of new technology workers so that MY pay will not go up? So that the wages of the people who have spent years studying and trying to get ahead in the country can be squashed by Chinese/Indian/middle eastern green card workers?
Immigration reform must be done in steps. FIRST secure the borders. THEN impose penalties on employers who hire illegal workers. FINALLY do the deportation or amnesty or whatever. This has to be the LAST amnesty. After this, more than 1 in 10 Americans will have entered this country illegally to become citizens. That includes the first amnesty. That is 30 million people who do not respect the law, that do not plan on EVER melting in our melting pot, that simply want to bring their way of life… complete with crime, graft, corruption, terrorism, etc… to our country. That is not racist. That is a fact that is fortold by how they got here and what they have done while they hvae been here. More American citizens have died at the hands of illegals in this country in the last 5 years than have died in Iraq. There is rarely a day in metro Atlanta that a citizen is not raped/assaulted/burglarized/killed by illegals in our homes or on our highways.
Have a look right now (and everyday) and see for yourselves.
By RCH
May 21, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this
General Manager Illegal immigrants come from many different nations. I suspect that Hispanic make the largest percentage because travel is easier and therefor a better target than whites,Asians,Indians etc. But remember,two wrongs do not make a right.
By deegee
May 21, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this
RCH, here is what you can say to the folks that stood in line for a green card. Feel good about the fact that you could come here safely on a plane or a boat and did not risk your life by walking across the desert or swimming a polluted river. Be happy that you could work without looking over your shoulder in fear of being deported. Be happy that if your employer didn’t pay you for your work that you had a recourse. Feel good about the fact that if you were held up, beaten and robbed that you had no fear of reporting it to the police. Be happy that you could take a paid sick day, and a paid holiday. Feel good about the fact that you could get a drivers license and that you didn’t have to spend the night in jail and pay $1,000.00 whenever the cops stopped you for a turn signal infraction. Feel comforted that your employer had workers comp and that the hospitalization and time off for your workplace injuries were paid. Take heart that Uncle Sam recognizes your social security contributions and will give you credit when you retire. Feel good about the fact that you can invest your money in a home here without fear of losing it after a workplace raid and deportation.
Anyone can come here illegally and work. Those that choose to stand in line can afford to and they just don’t want to live that way.
By RJ
May 21, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this
Realist,
Killin’ Time did a great job putting the $5,000 fine into perspective. I think the reaction you refer to results, in part, because those who would be subject to such a fine (or those who represent them) see the inequity in all of this. Illegal employers that benefit from the sweat of undocumented workers usually get away with their crime (or receive a relative slap on the wrist when caught), but the workers have to pay a hard-hitting fine.
I suspect that if this bill also proposed similar fines (relatively speaking) on illegal employers (relative to their revenues), and if we had reason to believe that such fines would be imposed, then we would see much of the opposition to the $5,000 amount dissipate.
It’s the double-standard that pi$$es many (including me) off.
By Realist
May 21, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this
What you can also say to that man who stood in line for his green card is this. Feel good about the fact that if your attempt at the American dream fails, and you find yourself wrapped up in the legal system for multiple DUIs and domestic violence, you can get a free court appointed attorney. If you find yourself without work or unable to pay taxes, you can get a free jail cell in a newly built and already overcrowded prison, paid for by hard working tax payers. If while in jail or not working, your wife and many children are unable to live, pay rent or eat or get healthcare, it will be provided for you free of charge, again at the expense of the American working taxpayer. If this scenario plays out millions upon millions of times over the next fifty years, and youre not sure how your grandkids are going to get by, dont worry, the government will continue to raise taxes on working people so that your grandkids can continue your lifesystle of irresponsibilty and laziness. Its the new American way for many. So suckle on up to the teet if you can find room, there is plenty for everyone!!!!
By Realist
May 21, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this
I see RJ. So you would condone bitting the hand that has fed you, offered your work and a chance at freedom, for what? For spite? Becuase you think it isnt fair? What in life IS fair RJ? When do you get somehting for nothing? I dont recall in my lie getting ANYTHING for nothing. I get the $3.18 hose up my rear end while the oil companies make record profits. Is that fair? Should they be punished becasuse I chose to drive a gas guzzler?
This is akin to baseball players who used steroids blaming baseball rather than themselves.
Should we fine business owners? Hell yes, fine them. I have never and will never hire and illegal. Not at my home nor at my company. I think they should be held accountable too. But I dont think that would change the sentiemnt among the immigrant crowd because they are simply angling for something for nothing. They feel no sense of responsibiltyu from what I see and read. None at all. Its like they are entitled because they do jobs nobody else wants. They are the epitome of opportunists, nothing more.
By RJ
May 21, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this
Realist,
I don’t believe, as you do, that those representing low-income, undocumented workers are angling for something for nothing. Given the expense, effort and and physical risk of sneaking into this country — plus the realities that families are split up, wages and working conditions are questionable, job security is unstable, the risk of arrest and imprisonment, etcetera — your “something for nothing” assessment strikes me as ill considered.
As far as “biting the hand that fed you”, I infer from this statement that you believe that undocumented workers benefit from their employment, but illegal employers don’t benefit from the efforts of these workers. If so, you’re mistaken.
Illegal employers offered them a “chance for freedom”? Facts persuade, Realist…not rhetoric.
You asked what in life is fair? Some things are fair; others are not. I don’t use inequities that exist in some realms of life as an excuse not to correct inequities that exist in others. The “what in life is fair” argument doesn’t pursuade either.
By deegee
May 21, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this
Realist, you have a very narrow and distorted perspective. I have watched “To Catch a Predator” on TV. It is disturbing but it has not perverted my view of the male specie.
By Southern Democrat
May 21, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this
Realist,
Your expressed opinions on this issue contradict your chosen Commenter name. Illegal immigrants are, of course, much closer to our forefathers and their ideology than those of us (including myself) lucky enough to be born in the U.S.
The overbloated democracy and contradictory foreign policy of the U.S. has created a situation where thousands of people want to come to the greatest country in the world, but simply cannot. Their situation in their home countries is one of dire need and they are desperate for the opportunity to better themselves… sound familiar? Maybe like the colonists? The only difference is that immigrants now are nicer to the natives than our ancestors were.
This is a good idea, people! Let’s gently scold the illegal immigrants here for not following our inane, overregulated practices, then welcome them into the patchwork quilt of Americana with open arms.
What makes me laugh the most about far right-wingers on this issue (in addition to the aforementioned simple contradiction to self-interest) is that it goes against the principles of Christianity (love one another), the American dream (hard work can overcome any obstacle), and free trade that they hold so dear.
By JohnD
May 21, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this
CO, the regular readers here know your positions.
The bill proposed by the Senate appears to be no more than rhetoric to assuage both sides of the issue.
The current laws are not enforced so why would either side of this issue believe a new law would be enforced?
AMELIA does not disclose often enough that she is an immigrant and in her eyes no immigrant is wrong, regardless of their felonious acts. She is an ardent supporter of immigration, legal or illegal. Perhaps she is just a part of the plan to overrun the American people with those who do not have our values or our culture and she desires to make the US a third world country.
AMELIA also continuously touts her figure of $90,000,000. This is clearly a trumped-up number by those who support illegal immigration. Common sense tells you the number is inaccurate and the simple fact California would have to build a new school every day forever to keep pace with the illegal immigrant children disproves her number.
Very simply, we have laws, we should enforce those laws for ALL illegal immigrants and we should deport each and every one. There is no sane argument for support of illegality, regardless of the results.
By Eric
May 21, 2007 6:00 PM | Link to this
Immigration is a tough subject. On one hand. None of the illegals should have never come here - how can we reward that?
Alternatively, these people are our neighbors, our employees, our helpers. They have shared their culture with us (who doesn’t have a Mexican restaurant near them filled with gringos?) They help keep our cost of living down, do the jobs we care not do ourselves, and many have made the US their home. Deporting them would just tear up families and scatter fractured remnants of families (and their associated societal problems) on both sides of the borders.
Pragmatically, we must allow many of them (the “good ones”) to stay. We must let them come out of the shadows and free them from the fear of the government seizing their property.
This will allow them to take pride and invest in their property and improve living conditions for all.
Amnesty for these criminals of opportunity is a tough pill to swallow — however the alternative is next to inhumane.
By misterbill
May 21, 2007 6:04 PM | Link to this
Amnesty by any other name is amnesty. Our forefathers wanted America to be a “melting pot”. We have accomplished that by balanced immigration. Granting citizenship, (yes it is!!!it’s just a matter of time.), to those who broke our laws is wrong. The proximity to our borders is no excuse. We will be multicultural, not a melting pot.That spells the end of our great republic.
By Amelia
May 21, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this
By JohnD
May 21, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to thi
AMELIA does not disclose often enough that she is an immigrant and in her eyes no immigrant is wrong, regardless of their felonious acts. She is an ardent supporter of immigration, legal or illegal. Perhaps she is just a part of the plan to overrun the American people with those who do not have our values or our culture and she desires to make the US a third world country.
AMELIA also continuously touts her figure of $90,000,000. This is clearly a trumped-up number by those who support illegal immigration. Common sense tells you the number is inaccurate and the simple fact California would have to build a new school every day forever to keep pace with the illegal immigrant children disproves her number.
John D, I in no way condone those that have committed serious crimes in this country. And yes I am an immigrant. A legal, degreed business owner immigrant. But by the way JohnD. Just what is the American culture. Could you nail that one down for us?
And also JohnD the $90,000,000,000 figure comes straight from GAO. Net gain figure mi amigo.
By Platitudes From JohnD
May 21, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this
“Very simply, we have laws, we should enforce those laws…there is no sane argument for support of illegality.”
The self-righteous JohnD rides again.
While JohnD seeks to “deport each and every one”, he is conspicuously silent about employers that hire illegally; silent on those employers that, illegally, do not pay undocumented workers overtime or maintain safe working conditions required by OSHA; silent about the cd’s and software that he and his friends have illegally copied, the traffic violations that he’s committed and the movies he’s snuck into without paying.
Yes, sadly, the self-righteous JohnD rides again.
By JohnD
May 22, 2007 8:15 AM | Link to this
Platitudes,
Why not step out of your closet and give us a real name?
I addressed the topic of the blog but I will expand on your questions.
I am in favor of penalizing anyone who assists a law breaker, whether that is an employer, an immigration advocate or a politician. For instance George W. Bush has failed to enforce the laws of the land with regard to immigration; he has not kept his oath and has allowed his personal opinion to shape the enforcement of the law. He should be held accountable.
As for your other examples, I can say that except for the traffic violations I am innocent of the other charges you level. The “need for speed” does at times overcome common sense. If I meet a constable on those occasions I accept the consequences.
I have no need for pirated software. What I use is specialized for my profession other than the Microsoft packages that are loaded on the computer. I am not aware of any of my friends or business associates who do not pay for their software.
I have perhaps ten cd’s and all were purchased in music stores. My daughter has a monthly limit for what she can spend on iTunes or Burn Lounge.
Why would anyone sneak in a movie and how would they do so? There is a ticket taker at the only entrance and if I could not afford $15-20 for a movie then I would not attend. Why do you simply accept that people in general are thieves? You should reevaluate your circle of friends.
Based upon your knowledge of the aforementioned acts I assume you have vast experience on the “wrong side” of the law. You should repent.
By Patitas
May 22, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this
By JohnD
May 22, 2007 8:15 AMAs for your other examples, I can say that except for the traffic violations I am innocent of the other charges you level. The “need for speed” does at times overcome common sense. If I meet a constable on those occasions I accept the consequences.
So I assume JohnD, in light of the above self admitted “consequences” that you have been given amnesty for those offenses? Am I correct.
By Patitas
May 22, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this
By JohnD
May 21, 2007 5:56 PMAMELIA also continuously touts her figure of $90,000,000. This is clearly a trumped-up number by those who support illegal immigration. Common sense tells you the number is inaccurate and the simple fact California would have to build a new school every day forever to keep pace with the illegal immigrant children disproves her number.
JohnD, you and Amelia are both wrong on this one. Interestingly enough, last night on Larry King Live there was a panel that included Representatives Duncan Hunter and some guy with the last name Bilbray, 2 Minutemen, to include Jim Gilchrist, a lady from Univision, a Latino border activist, Edward J. Olmos, and a Latino talk radio host. The actual undocumented immigrant net gain figure to our economy is $9,000,000,000.00 per year. Rep. Duncan Hunter acknowledged this figure as accurate. Heard it with my own ears. So, JohnD, while Amelia is partially wrong, you are dead wrong. Again. Maybe we can give you amnesty for habitual wrongness.
By JohnD
May 22, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this
Patitas,
No amnesty, I paid the penalty under the law, just as illegal immigrants should pay the penalty and be deported.
The first act of the illegals was just that - illegal. Their presence in the US is a continued act of illegality. The other crimes committed by the illegals are well documented. You do recall the Fort Dix episode last week I hope.
The borders should be secured, the illegals deported as they are found and legal immigration should be limited to 200,000 per year.
As I stated earlier, the employers, politicians and advocates who assist the illegals should also suffer the consequences. There is no rational argument for any other course of action.
By Patitas
May 22, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
JohnD, misdemeanors are not punishable by deportation. You are one of those die hard immigrant haters that Michael Chertoff was speaking of when he stated, “there are those among us that want nothing less than capital punishment for these imigrants”. He then went on to state that, “they will not be deported. They are here. They are not going anywhere”. As for rational argument JohnD, not only is your deportation opinion irrational. It is downright delusional. You are one of those people that does a very poor job of concealing your hate of these people. You also have no heart. Do you have any redemable qualities JohnD? Becuse you sure have no rational thought on this issue. But once again I will ask if you recieved amnesty by paying your traffic fines. Using your fuzzy and muddled logic that must be the case. Maybe all of you amnesty freaks should get together and get Perdoofus to disallow the granting of amnesty to lawbreakers like you JohnD, and just take you straight to the lock up. Is that not fair JohnD? Using your logic.
By JohnD
May 22, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this
Patitas,
Had you been raised properly you would have long ago been told to believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. Come on, a politician is a reliable source of information?
Amelia cites the GAO but she needs to provide a link to the study. A search of the GAO reports back to 1987 did not reveal a study providing the 90,000,000 dollar figure. That does not mean the number is not in the GAO reports but I would like to see the information and the quantifying data.
Logic would seem to refute any positive dollar benefit from illegal immigration. Increased law enforcement on the local level and the use of our resources are reasons enough to deport the illegals.
Until the immigrant community starts to inform law enforcement of the gang members, thieves and murderers in their community the view of the illegals by the “law-abiding” citizens will be negative.
We all too often hear of a Hispanic committing some act of violence, such as assault or murder, and then disappearing into the US Hispanic community or escaping to Central or South America.
By the way, I am 100 per cent correct on how this problem should be addressed and corrected and I would venture to say that eventually the problem will be so handled.
By ImmLawyer
May 22, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
Obviously JohnD has not read the statute as it applies to illegally crossing the border or overstaying one’s tourist, student, H1B visa, et al. If he had he would know that those are not deportable offenses. It is also obvious that JohnD is totally ignorant as to what deportation actually is. Immigrants that are returned to their countries routinely without deportation hearings are returned in an action known as Voluntary Return. To be deported one has to have committed a deportable offense and given a Deportation Hearing. That is required under the Constitution of the United States of America. So JohnD, if you can convince more rational people than you to round up, incarcerate, and schedule Deportation Hearings for 12 million or so undocumented immigrants, you could have them all out of here in about 600 years or so.
By Patitas
May 22, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this
JohnD, you can easily find the GAO figures JohnD. If you have the grey matter between your ears to accomplish that. All you are doing here is expressing an opinion that you are “sure” of and making broad sweeping generalizations in regard to an entire populace. And by the way JohnD, just who do you consider a reliable source? You are certainly not such a source. You are a touter of opinion. No more no less. And JohnD. Tell us how much deporting them will cost and what the drain on the above sources that you claim are already stretched. Tell us JohnD. Use that wonderful logic of yours that you seem so proud of. The rest of us just see you as some sort of pompous imbecile.
By JohnD
May 22, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
Patitas,
You clearly do not understand our system of laws. Do you come from country without law?
I have not advocated death nor have I expressed any hate. I have simply asked for the law to be enforced. Is that too much for you to understand?
The US does not have the resources to solve all of the world’s problems or to rescue all those who live in poverty. There are 4.8 BILLION people in the world who live below the lowest level of poverty in the US.
If we allow 10 million people a year into the US the 4.8 billion reproduces at a faster rate than we can accommodate and our resources could not sustain the 10 million figure.
Life in the US will not bring the illegals up to the US standard of living if the unfettered immigration continues - the US will slowly slide into the poverty of a third world nation. The resources are not available.
How convenient for you Liberals and illegal immigration supporters to cite government employees and statistics when they suit your purposes. Micahel Chertoff is an appointed bureaucrat and does not speak for the American people.
Are you aware that 80% of the US citizens want illegal immigration stopped and a similar number wants them out of the US?
Tell me Patitas, of what nationality are you? Has your home country offered aid in every disaster situation around the globe? Did your home country offer assistance after 9/11? Are Mexico and Canada doing enough to insure terrorists will not cross into the US to do harm to our people? The answer to the last is resoundingly NO!
When you can speak with authority, using statistics rather than emotion to guide your thought, then you can enter into a reasonable debate on the topic. To this point you have offered nothing of substance, just the standard Liberal name calling and emotional responses to a very clear violation of US sovereignty.
By HoraceT
May 22, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
JohnD you make no sense whatsoever. You are an imbecile. Where are your facts? Why don’t you respond to the ImmLawyer you moron?
By JohnD
May 22, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this
Touched a nerve have I, Patitas?
Unfettered emotion is all you have to offer. Find the report. I did not and I do not have unlimited time to spend on this.
The cost to deport would be a “one-time” expense as opposed to the ongoing, unlimited cost to support people who have expressed the desire to overthrow our government or kill us.
Muslim illegals are here to kill us and the Raza crowd has expressed a desire to overwhelm us with their numbers.
So by your and lmmLawyer’s logic we should just accept our fate.
Enough of your nonsense for one day.
By JohnD
May 22, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this
HoraceT,
Liberal name calling - that is all you people have for an argument. Read the posts, or did someone read them and type your response for you? The facts are there, in English.
By Donna
May 22, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this
JohnD I just saw a report that states that each immigrant family is an $80,000.00 net gain to this country over the course of a lifetime. You need to start giving us more than just your obviously bigoted opinions. But the beautiful thing is going to be watching the reaction and rage of you and those of your ilk when an immigrant friendly bill is law. And it will happen.
By Donna
May 22, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
What facts JohnD. Sounds like aalot of redneck BS to me.
By Kurt
May 22, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
JohnD finally used that word folks. Sovereignty. Now we know. JohnD is nothing more than a xenophobic nativist that sooner or later will trot out the other giveaway argument about the preservation of “American culture.” That one gives it all away.
By Tommy
May 22, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this
I guess the manager down at Walmart and the counter clerk should be prosecuted for selling them food and clothing too huh, JohnD. You worthless piece of racist sh%t. You should be deported.
By Pastor
May 22, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this
You’re not a Christian are you JohnD?
By JohnD
May 22, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
For all you loving, tolerant “progressives” on the Left, here is the executive summary of a study released yesterday, I believe.
http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/SR14es.cfm
This not only refutes the $90 billion positive claim but also makes the number closer to a $90 billion negative drain on the economy.
Tommy,
Read the post to which I responded from Platitudes. He raised the issue of penalizing all who benefit from illegal immigration, not I.
Why are all of you so opposed to our system of laws and the enforcement of those laws?
Pastor,
Even Christians have to be realistic and recognize the limitations of our resources. The money we Christians give every year to help those in need surely dwarfs that of the “Progressive” community.
The quotes signify my absolute refusal to recognize you on the left as progressive - that is simply a name you gave yourselves. You only wish to spend the resources of others on yourselves and those you deem worthy and that is more “Bonnie and Clyde” than progressive.