Immigration Debate

Well, that begs the question (sic), are we in better shape, economically, than the 70s? What about socially, and other qualities of life? There is obviously a demand for labor, so as long as that exists, and as long as men and women in the US can create jobs, the tired, poor and huddled masses will continue to yearn to breathe free.

why are we trying to re-invent the wheel, everyone needs a passport and needs to be accounted for. It's not rocket science. Of course, before that can happen the current situation needs to be remedied...ie. 10's of millions of illegals.

why are we trying to re-invent the wheel, everyone needs a passport and needs to be accounted for. It's not rocket science. Of course, before that can happen the current situation needs to be remedied...ie. 10's of millions of illegals.

You wouldn't think it would be so hard since you supposedly need an ID to buy alcohol, write a check, use a credit card, drive a car, fly, enter a government building, vote, get a job, get medical care, go to school.......I always had to have ID because I would leave the country - State ID card to go to Canada before I was old enough to drive, passport to travel abroad, visa to live for extended period in other countries.

I'm not familiar enough w/ the black market/living off the grid to know why it's so hard to enforce.

Why would I read the world is flat thread? As for the last sentence, the assimilation/crime/language thread was made with the Italians and the Irish, now it's made with the Mexicans. The fence and security issue is a racist non-starter as long as the Canadian border is wide open. The port topic really has nothing to do with this, so I'm not sure why that's been brought up.

Without reading this whole thing, is everyone taking the talk radio side of this? The winners are the ovarian lottery are the only ones who deserve to live in a shining city on a hill, and those damn Mexicans, Irishmen, and Italians can fend for themselves?

FTLOG, what the hail are you talking about?

Maybe if your American Idol Bush had a better plan and policies instead of looking for WMD, we would have more money for security at our ports.

In February 2006 the president of the American Association of Port Authorities complained that the $708 million allotted for maritime security over the past four years amounted to only one-fifth of what the port authorities had identified as needed to properly secure the ports.

I haven't a clue what point you're trying to make, but we didn't go into a whole discussion of ports vs. a fence to keep illegal immigrants out.
All I did was a make comment to skunky that i was less concerned with a terrorist crossing with backpack full of small bombs vs. a lareg scale weapon coming in our port.

The fence and security issue is a racist non-starter as long as the Canadian border is wide open.

True, the US/Canada border is the longest unsecured border in the world, but Canadians are not comprising the majority of illegal immigrants to the US. 81% are from Mexico and other Latin American countries. I agree that securing the Mexican border while ignoring the Candian one is not a truly effective solution, but they would have to first enter Canada via a port or airport, severely limiting the number who would then be able to sneak across the border from the North.

I think we all agree a wall or fence is an ineffective and cost prohibitive method.

True, the US/Canada border is the longest unsecured border in the world, but Canadians are not comprising the majority of illegal immigrants to the US. 81% are from Mexico and other Latin American countries. I agree that securing the Mexican border while ignoring the Candian one is not a truly effective solution, but they would have to first enter Canada via a port or airport, severely limiting the number who would then be able to sneak across the border from the North.

I think we all agree a wall or fence is an ineffective and cost prohibitive method.

My point is that the security issue is a non-starter, but we agree on the fence.

Mango,
What the hell is FTLOG? Other than than the money issue, I agree with your point. Any government agency is going to ask for about 3x what they actually need then spend every dime so they get it again the next year, so they I don't believe that throwing money at a government agency will solve the problem.

FTLOG: For The Love Of God

I think the security issue is a very valid concern. What is the point of making everyone have passports to travel when terrorists can stroll across the border?

I don't have a problem with anyone coming in in search of a better life (that's how my gene pool got here), my concerns are security and the drain on our resources.

My point is that the security issue is a non-starter, but we agree on the fence.

Mango,
What the hell is FTLOG? Other than than the money issue, I agree with your point. Any government agency is going to ask for about 3x what they actually need then spend every dime so they get it again the next year, so they I don't believe that throwing money at a government agency will solve the problem.

No, what we need is an international scanning system similar to Hong Kong who scans 100% of containers through end scanners and the info is stored in computer databases for later review if necessary. It hasn't slowed anything down there. Right now we scan a small percentage of containers that enter the US.
But the Sabo amendment was shot down last year mainly by Bushco.
I mean who wants to tell their major campaign contributors they'll have to pay a small cargo fee. :roll:

FTLOG: For The Love Of God

I think the security issue is a very valid concern. What is the point of making everyone have passports to travel when terrorists can stroll across the border?

I don't have a problem with anyone coming in in search of a better life (that's how my gene pool got here), my concerns are security and the drain on our resources.

Security may be a concern, but unless the talk radio crowd wants to build a fence on our northern border, the security topic is a distraction from their protectionist argument. As for draining resources, that's a valid point, but it should be made from the point that entitlement reform is needed for everyone on the government teat, not just for the newcomers. As a side note, my favorite economist opened one of his first books with this:

President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."... Neither half of that statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society.

No, what we need is an international scanning system similar to Hong Kong who scans 100% of containers through end scanners and the info is stored in computer databases for later review if necessary. It hasn't slowed anything down there. Right now we scan a small percentage of containers that enter the US.
But the Sabo amendment was shot down last year mainly by Bushco.
I mean who wants to tell their major campaign contributors they'll have to pay a small cargo fee. :roll:

Um, ok, that sounds great. Sounds like a plan. But we are talking about immigration. I said I agree with you on the backpacker vs. the bomb in the port.

Um, ok, that sounds great. Sounds like a plan. But we are talking about immigration. I said I agree with you on the backpacker vs. the bomb in the port.

My point above if you had the whole thread was Bush raised this Immigration plan in 2000 and again in 2004 and it was shot down. Why all of a sudden was it raised again? To show concern for our national security? I think not. Go ahead and call me paranoid about conspiracy theories if you like, but makes me wonder who of his friends will benefit from this, although I do not think it has any chances of actually passing. Which leads me to believe it was pushed again to the floor now to detract us from criticism of the surge.

My point above if you had the whole thread was Bush raised this Immigration plan in 2000 and again in 2004 and it was shot down. Why all of a sudden was it raised again? To show concern for our national security? I think not. Go ahead and call me paranoid about conspiracy theories if you like, but makes me wonder who of his friends will benefit from this, although I do not think it has any chances of actually passing. Which leads me to believe it was pushed again to the floor now to detract us from criticism of the surge.

Bush never fashioned himself as a wartime president. That is one reason why Rumsfeld, who had been a great politician, was SecDef (it's an interesting story how 41 was named VP, when Rummy was Reagan's choice). He has a hispanic sister-in-law, he used to be the governor of Texas, and he sees things in a moral light, so he has a history with immigration. As for which friends will benefit, that's where your hatred for Bush misses the point. He is an idealist (see the social security issue), he is an optimist when it comes to people (does Harriet freaking Miers ring a bell?), and he knows that this is one of his historic platforms that actually has a shot. It's not because it will make his pals a bunch of money.

Bush never raised it as a concern for our national security, that's his opponents, so I don't know where you are going there.

6th Gen, you might note that I never stated which border we should secure, rather, we need to secure our borders. Geography itself is our ally along the Canadian border as so much of it is just to the desolate side of BFE...thick stands of forest and a colder than all get out climate for much of the year helps things take care of themselves. I also put much more faith in the Canadian government's ability to sniff out terror plots while they are incubating. Our southern border is a whole other issue;the climate can be hot, but we know illegals still risk a run across the desert, and I have much less faith in Mexico's capacity to quell smoldering terror. Playing the race card is weak, frankly. I am not sure how many Canadians are slipping across the border to come work in the US, but I can tell you I personally know at least a few Canadian citizens who went to school in the US and now work in the US who live in constant fear of having to go back to Canada because their work papers will expire, and apparently getting them renewed is so straightforward they need to hire an immigration law attorney.

6th Gen, you might note that I never stated which border we should secure, rather, we need to secure our borders. Geography itself is our ally along the Canadian border as so much of it is just to the desolate side of BFE...thick stands of forest and a colder than all get out climate for much of the year helps things take care of themselves. I also put much more faith in the Canadian government's ability to sniff out terror plots while they are incubating. Our southern border is a whole other issue;the climate can be hot, but we know illegals still risk a run across the desert, and I have much less faith in Mexico's capacity to quell smoldering terror. Playing the race card is weak, frankly. I am not sure how many Canadians are slipping across the border to come work in the US, but I can tell you I personally know at least a few Canadian citizens who went to school in the US and now work in the US who live in constant fear of having to go back to Canada because their work papers will expire, and apparently getting them renewed is so straightforward they need to hire an immigration law attorney.

So we should depend on other countries and count on enemies poor determination to secure our borders? The wall idea didn't really play out very well for the Ming dynasty, not sure why it would work for us. The race card is not weak, it has been the same anti-immigration argument for hundreds of years.

Holy cow, look how timely! Maybe if you want to ever see your 53rd floor condo finished, you ought to be pulling for the amnesty bill

Jun 27, 2:27 PM (ET)

By MELISSA NELSON

PANAMA CITY BEACH, Fla. (AP) - The sheriff's department has developed a remarkably effective - and controversial - way of catching illegal immigrants: Deputies in patrol cars pull up to a construction site in force, and watch and see who runs.
Those who take off are chased down and arrested on charges such as trespassing, for cutting through someone else's property, or loitering, for hiding out in someone's yard, or reckless driving, for speeding off in a car.
U.S. immigration authorities are then given the names of those believed to be in this country illegally.
"It's not wrong for them to run, but it's not wrong for us to chase them either," said Sheriff Frank McKeithen, who created his Illegal Alien Task Force in April to target construction sites in this Florida Panhandle county.
Immigrant advocates say the technique is repugnant, and the ACLU says its constitutionality is questionable.
Illegal immigrants are leaving town. And builders are worried the crackdown will deprive them of the labor they need to take part in a building boom in which Panama City's Beach cheap spring-break motels are being torn down and replaced with high-rise condos.
The sheriff said the raids are justified under a long-standing Florida law prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
His department has conducted dozens of these raids over the past three months, sometimes using five or six patrol cars, and has reported more than 500 people to immigration officials since November.
The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund is investigating the arrests because "the intimidation factor is of great concern," said Elise Shore, regional counsel for the organization.
Benjamin Stevenson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida, said he finds the tactic troubling.
"Why are they sending out six or seven agents to investigate a paper crime, and are they causing them to run in the first place through intimidation?" he asked.
As the debate over illegal immigration plays out in Washington, McKeithen is among a growing number of state and local officials taking it upon themselves to enforce immigration laws that up to now were regarded as a federal responsibility.
For example, Farmers Branch, Texas, is trying to prohibit apartment rentals to illegal immigrants in the Dallas suburb. Georgia passed a law requiring employers to verify the immigration status of all new employees.
Barbara Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Miami, would not comment on the sheriff's tactics.
McKeithen has asked Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum for a legal opinion on his tactics. A spokeswoman for McCollum said the office is researching the request.
McKeithen is already under fire from civil rights groups over the videotaped 2006 death of a 14-year-old boy who was roughed up by guards at a juvenile boot camp operated by the sheriff's department. Eight former employees are facing manslaughter charges.
The sheriff said that more recently, his officers have been making fewer arrests of workers who flee, and are concentrating more on asking employers for the paperwork on their employees. Sheriff's deputies then arrest workers whose documents are found to be fraudulent.
Mexican illegal immigrant Jose Madrid, 28, said he has been unable to find a construction job over the past six weeks because of the crackdown, and hasn't been able to send money to his parents and his 7-year-old son back home.
"We immigrants, we are leaving Panama City. People are afraid they will be deported," he said. "The companies don't want to hire illegal people. Now they're only hiring those with papers."
Developer Louis Breland is finishing the first phase of a $750 million beach condo project.
"Subcontractors could not function without immigrant laborers for painting, rebar and steel work. They are the best workers," he said. "Without them, the cost of construction would be 10 times as much and nothing would get built."

The only Canadians I see around here are snowbirds. It is the Mexicans who are willing to live, 14 people in a two bedroom home and do hard manual labor for $10 an hour. The Canadians don't seem to want to do that. At the Home Depot in Buckhead (Atlanta), there are plenty of illegal Mexicans who will work for less than minimum wage, and they are not filling out W2's. ;-)

The only Canadians I see around here are snowbirds. It is the Mexicans who are willing to live, 14 people in a two bedroom home and do hard manual labor for $10 an hour. The Canadians don't seem to want to do that. At the Home Depot in Buckhead (Atlanta), there are plenty of illegal Mexicans who will work for less than minimum wage, and they are not filling out W2's. ;-)

There is a demand for labor that is exacerbated by wage floors and benefit minumums imposed by the government. They don't know it, but that and making drugs illegal has done a ton of damage to teenagers, especially black ones.

So we should depend on other countries and count on enemies poor determination to secure our borders? The wall idea didn't really play out very well for the Ming dynasty, not sure why it would work for us. The race card is not weak, it has been the same anti-immigration argument for hundreds of years.

Or by the editorial board at The Wall Street Journal looking to kiss their advertisers butt:roll:. Is it more racist to look the other way as about 300 illegals bake in the desert annually (the body count is around 125 to date in 2007) or build barriers that discourage them from making the dangerous trip? Look, it is this simple...if you, Bush, Kennedy, Lott or any of the others want to pay for illegals to stick around, that is fine by me. You all can go to a Home Depot in Arlington, VA and have as many come home with you as you desire, then YOU can pay for their health care, education, food and housing. You should not expect ME to pay for such insanity, but if you share Bush's idealism, by all means, adopt away. I am guessing you have serious problems with moneyholes like the federal war on poverty, so how could you possibly want taxpayers to foot the bill for tens of millions of new bodies on the dole? I don't think we ought to count on Canada or Mexico for our security;building a high-tech security system on our borders makes sense to me so we can embrace our own destiny.

Or by the editorial board at The Wall Street Journal looking to kiss their advertisers butt:roll:. Is it more racist to look the other way as about 300 illegals bake in the desert annually (the body count is around 125 to date in 2007) or build barriers that discourage them from making the dangerous trip? Look, it is this simple...if you, Bush, Kennedy, Lott or any of the others want to pay for illegals to stick around, that is fine by me. You all can go to a Home Depot in Arlington, VA and have as many come home with you as you desire, then YOU can pay for their health care, education, food and housing. You should not expect ME to pay for such insanity, but if you share Bush's idealism, by all means, adopt away. I am guessing you have serious problems with moneyholes like the federal war on poverty, so how could you possibly want taxpayers to foot the bill for tens of millions of new bodies on the dole? I don't think we ought to count on Canada or Mexico for our security;building a high-tech security system on our borders makes sense to me so we can embrace our own destiny.

Embrace protectionism? And I am pretty close to the WSJ editorial page, but more on a Lockesian pretense rather than a business one. I don't believe that Mexicans should fry in the desert or be forced to scale walls, so you miss there. Again, as the welfare state is wrong, we should fix the welfare state, not impose a morally unjust law.

Embrace protectionism? And I am pretty close to the WSJ editorial page, but more on a Lockesian pretense rather than a business one. I don't believe that Mexicans should fry in the desert or be forced to scale walls, so you miss there. Again, as the welfare state is wrong, we should fix the welfare state, not impose a morally unjust law.

Maybe if our government could do something to get the collective governments of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and the other suspects off their butts and have diverse economies, we wouldn't have '(Mexicans) forced to scale walls' to cash in on short term gain within our borders. I can't believe how wrong you are about what is morally just and unjust. There is nothing morally just about saddling US taxpayers present and future with funding a piece of junk legislation. There is nothing morally just with inviting millions of poor, uneducated people to our country to enjoy the 'lucrative' life of living on government benefits. There is nothing morally just with placing more burden on already stressed education and healthcare systems in our country. How can you understand so clearly the utter failure the war on poverty has been, yet you advocate importing greater poverty so the feds can really prove how well they can fight poverty? That makes zero sense;none, zilch. Just as our gutless elected officials refuse to address fundamental issues regarding the perpetual poverty cycle as they currently exist, they will in the future refuse to address fundamental problems and you and I will both be paying for it my friend. It is a given that there is going to be a Social Security and probably Medicare/Medicaid crisis within 20 years-do you really think the moral high road includes throwing more bodies requiring payment into the mix? Just so we are on the same page, what is your understanding regarding the method of payment for benefits and services these newly legit folks will be receiving?

Has anyone been able to find any estimates on what type of income is estimated to be generated? I would be curious to see that and how it is derived.
All I can find is a cost and immigrant population estimate for the next decade.

Why would I read the world is flat thread? As for the last sentence, the assimilation/crime/language thread was made with the Italians and the Irish, now it's made with the Mexicans. The fence and security issue is a racist non-starter as long as the Canadian border is wide open. The port topic really has nothing to do with this, so I'm not sure why that's been brought up.

10-20 million illegal aliens in the United States is a monumental problem regardless of race. Canadians visit and go home you argumentative numbnuts.

10-20 million illegal aliens in the United States is a monumental problem regardless of race. Canadians visit and go home you argumentative numbnuts.

Hey jackass, percentage wise, it's no different than in the past. And the point, which you intentionally miss, is that if terrorists wanted to get into the country they wouldn't have to come through Mexico.

There is nothing morally just about saddling US taxpayers present and future with funding a piece of junk legislation. There is nothing morally just with inviting millions of poor, uneducated people to our country to enjoy the 'lucrative' life of living on government benefits. There is nothing morally just with placing more burden on already stressed education and healthcare systems in our country.

Did I say there was? No. I said the problem is the government benefits, not the immigrants. As for poor and uneducated, that's what every immigrant group that came to this country was. Not to get into it, but crime wise - first generation immigrants are rarely criminals, second generation are usually some of our most upstanding citizens, third are usually on par with suburban whites, and fourth are on par with poor blacks. The problem of crime is self-created, and that's something that needs to be addressed. I'd start with elimination of minimum wage (which specifically keeps black teenagers unemployed) and drug legalization. But that is another topic.

Did I say there was? No. I said the problem is the government benefits, not the immigrants. As for poor and uneducated, that's what every immigrant group that came to this country was. Not to get into it, but crime wise - first generation immigrants are rarely criminals, second generation are usually some of our most upstanding citizens, third are usually on par with suburban whites, and fourth are on par with poor blacks. The problem of crime is self-created, and that's something that needs to be addressed. I'd start with elimination of minimum wage (which specifically keeps black teenagers unemployed) and drug legalization. But that is another topic.

You assume that the current group of immigrants would behave in a similar manner to those in the past;6th Gen, you might be right, but I challenge you to identify the immigrant group from our history who burnt their first calorie on US soil breaking United States law. Which historic group envisioned sending the bulk of their assets back to the country from which they came instead of focusing on living the American dream? Do you really think Ted Kennedy and his ilk are going to tinker with the minimum wage to correct social ills at this point?

Here is the bottom line-Nobody argues the fact that granting pseudo-citizenship to tens of millions of people will be any cheaper than several billions of dollars, and this isn't a one time cost. WHAT HAVE OUR PRO-AMNESTY SENATORS AND PRESIDENT DONE TO ENSURE THE COSTS WILL BE PAID??? The illegals can't pay for it;the stat I saw was that each illegal man, woman and child here already represent a roughly $20,000 drain on the treasury annually...how are we going to pay for this foolishness? Cut taxes? Cut programs? Raise taxes? Note I am not asking what 6thGen would do about raising the money, what are the architects of this bill doing to assure this is not an unfunded mandate?