GOP Backing Away From Tough Immigration

[YASNY]

Because as soon as you use prison labor, you have taken a job from a honest person and given it to a criminal. Which is why I prefer a guest worker program and allowing people who want the jobs to come here and work those jobs while earning citizenship. Regardless of what that countries' immigration laws are. I also favor a program to allow those who are already here to stay as long as they have not committed any crimes while in the US.

 

Honest person? I thought we talking about using prison labor to the jobs that ILLEGAL aliens are doing?

[Texsox]

If their are people in more dire need than Mexico, why are we so worried about fixing their problems?  Also if we are only worried about American's how is a guest worker program really in our best interests?  Right now we have a seemingly endless supply of below minimum wage labor willing to work in unsafe conditions to do all of the jobs we don't want to do, while not burdening our social entitlement programs at all.  Companies win because they don't have to pay high wages or offer benefits, we the consumers win because costs are kept low for us in low skill labor intensive sectors.  Why are we worried about these people at all then?  Supposedly they aren't taking any American's jobs that they want to do, so we don't lose there either...  If this is just about us, why help the illegal aliens at all?  That would just hurt us in the long run anyway.  Why would we hurt OURSELVES to help Mexicans in the first place?

 

Can you see how that arguement doesn't hold up at all?

 

Thank you for illustrating my point better than I was. You have outlined most, if not all of the issues that need to be debated and worked into a new immigration law. What you left out, and I believe should be left out, is how many Americans Honduras allows into Honduras, or Brazil, or Mexico. I don't believe at some point in writing the new policy we should hear, "well Honduras allows unlimited Americans so we should allow unlimited Hondurans, or else we will be hypocrits."

 

If expelling all illegals is the correct policy for America, let's do it. But as soon as we back off that stance, then we have accepted them into this country and have to decide what is best for America.

 

You guys keep switching back and forth. Do you want them to stay or not? After all they are criminals and illegals. Or do you want to find a way for them to stay?

 

Why would we want to hurt ourselves to help Mexicans? I hope you aren't asking me that question because I've been saying we don't want to hurt ourselves. That if it is best for us to grant amnesty then grant amnesty, if it is best to expell them, then expell them. But don't make the decision on what Mexico allows or doesn't allow.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Oh.Please.

 

These people obviously are trying to get into Mexico for a reason.  There are obviously jobs that Mexicans don't want to do, and there must be somekind of stupid immigration policy that prevents people who actually want to do these jobs from getting there... or they wouldn't have central/south americans trying to sneak into their country to make a better life for themselves. 

 

lol...

 

And what jobs are those???

 

 

You know what they say about assumptions...

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Honest person?  I thought we talking about using prison labor to the jobs that ILLEGAL aliens are doing?

 

So they're dishonest until they gain citizenship? Or do you brand them as dishonest for life because of how they arrived, specifically those who gain citizenship after arriving here illegally?

 

They may come here illegally but the vast majority are not criminals.

[southsider2k5]

lol...

 

And what jobs are those???

You know what they say about assumptions...

 

You seem to know it all... Why would you leave your family and friends behind to sneak into a forgein country where you are considered a felon, could be robbed, beaten, and generally abused... and that's just by the police? Just for the hell of it?

[southsider2k5]

So they're dishonest until they gain citizenship?  Or do you brand them as dishonest for life because of how they arrived, specifically those who gain citizenship after arriving here illegally? 

 

They may come here illegally but the vast majority are not criminals.

 

Breaking multiple laws doesn't make you a criminal? Now that's funny.

[southsider2k5]

Thank you for illustrating my point better than I was. You have outlined most, if not all of the issues that need to be debated and worked into a new immigration law. What you left out, and I believe should be left out, is how many Americans Honduras allows into Honduras, or Brazil, or Mexico. I don't believe at some point in writing the new policy we should hear, "well Honduras allows unlimited Americans so we should allow unlimited Hondurans, or else we will be hypocrits."

 

If expelling all illegals is the correct policy for America, let's do it. But as soon as we back off that stance, then we have accepted them into this country and have to decide what is best for America.

 

You guys keep switching back and forth. Do you want them to stay or not? After all they are criminals and illegals. Or do you want to find a way for them to stay?

 

Why would we want to hurt ourselves to help Mexicans? I hope you aren't asking me that question because I've been saying we don't want to hurt ourselves.  That if it is best for us to grant amnesty then grant amnesty, if it is best to expell them, then expell them. But don't make the decision on what Mexico allows or doesn't allow.

 

Like I have said through out this whole thread... The big picture is to solve this problem once and for all. Making every single illegal alien here a citizen doesn't solve a damned thing for the United States in the long run, and neither does expelling them all.

 

We still have porous borders, 12 million illegals here, half a million more illegals showing up a year, and no reason for them to stop coming. We need to plug that hole right there, and make it so that there is no incentive to come into the United States illegally, and this program doesn't even begin to do so.

 

You can argue the fine points, and ask me as many questions as you want, but it all comes down to that answer right there.

[Texsox]

Breaking multiple laws doesn't make you a criminal?   Now that's funny.

 

Of course you are correct, it makes you a criminal. But we have always used judgement in how we enforce the laws. Governors and Presidents have broad powers to offer clemency or pardons.

 

Many have said that rounding them up and deporting them isn't an option, As a society, we are agreeing to leave these "criminals" walking around. I see a difference between employing "criminals" who we have decided can be walking around free and employing "criminals" that we feel should be locked up. Am I missing something?

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course you are correct, it makes you a criminal. But we have always used judgement in how we enforce the laws. Governors and Presidents have broad powers to offer clemency or pardons.

 

Many have said that rounding them up and deporting them isn't an option, As a society, we are agreeing to leave these "criminals" walking around. I see a difference between employing "criminals" who we have decided can be walking around free and employing "criminals" that we feel should be locked up. Am I missing something?

I'd like to point out that when I suggested we don't enforce Pub Intox laws in bars, you used the exact opposite of this argument - that we cannot pick and choose the laws we enforce.

[Texsox]

Like I have said through out this whole thread... The big picture is to solve this problem once and for all.  Making every single illegal alien here a citizen doesn't solve a damned thing for the United States in the long run, and neither does expelling them all. 

 

We still have porous borders, 12 million illegals here, half a million more illegals showing up a year, and no reason for them to stop coming.  We need to plug that hole right there, and make it so that there is no incentive to come into the United States illegally, and this program doesn't even begin to do so.

 

You can argue the fine points, and ask me as many questions as you want, but it all comes down to that answer right there.

 

 

It does begin, but doesn't do enough.

[Texsox]

I'd like to point out that when I suggested we don't enforce Pub Intox laws in bars, you used the exact opposite of this argument - that we cannot pick and choose the laws we enforce.

 

Which is why we need to find a public policy that works. The laws need to be changed, to work for America. We do need to enforce the law, and find the proper disposition to the case. I believe the proper disposition is not trying to deport millions of workers and cripple some industry segments. The proper disposition is accept in, via some amnesty or guest worker program, those that have been living here and being good citizens, and deporting those that have broken other laws in addition to our immigration laws.

[Balta1701]

Like I have said through out this whole thread... The big picture is to solve this problem once and for all.  Making every single illegal alien here a citizen doesn't solve a damned thing for the United States in the long run, and neither does expelling them all. 

 

We still have porous borders, 12 million illegals here, half a million more illegals showing up a year, and no reason for them to stop coming.  We need to plug that hole right there, and make it so that there is no incentive to come into the United States illegally, and this program doesn't even begin to do so.

 

You can argue the fine points, and ask me as many questions as you want, but it all comes down to that answer right there.

See, that's the real trick here, we actually have 2 problems to deal with, not just 1. We have porous borders and a busted immigration system, that's a clear problem, but we also have 12 million people already here, and that's another problem.

 

I think the real reason nothing has been done at the Congressional level is that people get too obsessed with 1 side or the other. So we wind up with guys like Kyl insisting that they won't let anything happen anywhere unless we criminalize those 10-20 million folk who are already her, and that winds up blocking reforms that could at least prevent the problem from getting worse.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/20/immigrat...aids/index.html

 

 

This is how its done!!!!!!!

 

 

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!!!!!

[Balta1701]

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/20/immigrat...aids/index.html

This is how its done!!!!!!!

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!!!!!

I'll buy it as more than window dressing when they actually go after Walmart.

[southsider2k5]

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/20/immigrat...aids/index.html

This is how its done!!!!!!!

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!!!!!

 

Throw this on top of something like jail time for complicit execs and $50,000 fine per illegal employee and you have your answer for stopping illegal immigration.

[southsideirish71]

There are some other side affects of people who are here illegally.

 

Some of them try to fit in, so they create or steal identities. Sometimes its a dead person, sometimes the person is alive.

 

Identity theft is not a victimless crime. There was a story on NBC in January where a legal mexican immigrant couldnt buy a house because her credit was ruined. She had worked for years and had saved for the american dream. She was a single mother, who had finally had enough to get a house for her children. NBC tracked down the person(in a nice big new house in Zion) who stole her identity , it was an illegal immigrant who lived here for years. The son stated that she had done nothing wrong but just had problems making payments. Well that person has ruined another persons right to the american dream because they were a bit short sighted on the cause and affect of identity theft.

[Texsox]

Throw this on top of something like jail time for complicit execs and $50,000 fine per illegal employee and you have your answer for stopping illegal immigration.

 

And toss in a solution to who does these jobs, restart the closed businesses, build the jails, open more courts, and you have really solved the problem. Would you jail the execs at the top? The HR manager? Their immediate supervisor?

 

Some of them try to fit in, so they create or steal identities. Sometimes its a dead person, sometimes the person is alive.

 

Identity theft is not a victimless crime. There was a story on NBC in January where a legal mexican immigrant couldnt buy a house because her credit was ruined. She had worked for years and had saved for the american dream. She was a single mother, who had finally had enough to get a house for her children. NBC tracked down the person(in a nice big new house in Zion) who stole her identity , it was an illegal immigrant who lived here for years. The son stated that she had done nothing wrong but just had problems making payments. Well that person has ruined another persons right to the american dream because they were a bit short sighted on the cause and affect of identity theft.

 

Those are the individuals that should be jailed, then deported. This person fooled banks and everyone else. Some here would then also prosecute the employer for also being fooled by the paperwork, because that would stop illegal immigration.

[Texsox]

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/20/immigrat...aids/index.html

This is how its done!!!!!!!

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!!!!!

I'm with you Nuke, this company clearly knew about the problem and ignored it. These are the ones that ignored the law and should be punished.

 

But that isn't the solution we need. because it it was, we'd be chanting

 

1,000 Down 11,999,000 to GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And that, we've all agreed is too expensive and probably not possible.

[Controlled Chaos]

What's the opposition to a fence?? I know this addresses only part 1 of the problem. I just want to hear the negatives to it.

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

What's the opposition to a fence??  I know this addresses only part 1 of the problem.  I just want to hear the negatives to it.

 

 

 

Thats very similar to.......if it actually isin't.........the Isreali border fence that they're completing even now. I've long argued we need something like that on our southern border.

[Balta1701]

What's the opposition to a fence??  I know this addresses only part 1 of the problem.  I just want to hear the negatives to it.

Well, I'll give you 1..$$$$$. Do you have any idea how much that long of a fence, including motion detectors, surveillance cameras, people to monitor both, repairs, and so forth would actually cost? Just building the 2 barriers with a road inbetween them would probalby run $4-$5 billion, or more. Add in all that high tech stuff, and we're talking tens of billions.

 

And even in areas where there currently is a fence, it usually is still penetrated with relative ease if you know where to go.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

See, that's the real trick here, we actually have 2 problems to deal with, not just 1.  We have porous borders and a busted immigration system, that's a clear problem, but we also have 12 million people already here, and that's another problem.

 

I think the real reason nothing has been done at the Congressional level is that people get too obsessed with 1 side or the other.  So we wind up with guys like Kyl insisting that they won't let anything happen anywhere unless we criminalize those 10-20 million folk who are already her, and that winds up blocking reforms that could at least prevent the problem from getting worse.

 

 

^^^^ I agree with ya on that one. Lets get the more modest reforms done first, the ones that are sure to pass, and then go after these people more aggressively. Carrot and stick approach and all.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well, I'll give you 1..$$$$$.  Do you have any idea how much that long of a fence, including motion detectors, surveillance cameras, people to monitor both, repairs, and so forth would actually cost?  Just building the 2 barriers with a road inbetween them would probalby run $4-$5 billion, or more.  Add in all that high tech stuff, and we're talking tens of billions.

 

And even in areas where there currently is a fence, it usually is still penetrated with relative ease if you know where to go.

 

 

 

Im sure you could slice off 5 billion from the defense budget to fund this project. Right now I think a physical border to keep invaders out is a lot better use of funds than a handful of F-22's that can be put off 1 year.

[NorthSideSox72]

What's the opposition to a fence??  I know this addresses only part 1 of the problem.  I just want to hear the negatives to it.

 

I've posted on this topic many times in here, and I'll reiterate my points on why a serious wall/fence like that is a huge mistake...

 

1) Technology is always cheaper than brick and mortar. Example: traffic congestion. Over and over again, its found to be better to use traffic control systems (includes cameras, controllable lanes, etc.) to reduce congestion than adding more lanes, and for cheaper. In this case, the technology would include cameras, motion sensors, small well-equiped teams with the best military vision equipment, helicopters and planes with FLIR, etc. Those are being used only VERY sparsely right now. Those will be more effective and cheaper than a wall.

 

2) A wall or fence like that is an environmental disaster. For one thing, every species of animal that exists across that boundary bigger than an ant will effectively be split into two distinct populations. And any species that have been pushed across one way or the other and are trying to recover their range will be thwarted. Stilted ecosystems won't be able to recover, plant species will be effected, and suddenly you have major flooding and dust storm problems in the southwest (more so than now).

 

3) The fence is still going to be penetrated if you don't have personnel in place for detection and interception, and people are expensive. That is why the use of technology, which can be used to TARGET the areas for response and use fewer personnel, is the better solution.

 

There are other reasons, but those are the big ones for now.

[Texsox]

What's the opposition to a fence??  I know this addresses only part 1 of the problem.  I just want to hear the negatives to it.

 

 

billions of dollars to contruct, and it probably would not keep illegals out. The borders are thousands of miles long. It would be too costly to build and control and for what benefit?

 

Terrorists can come in on tourist visas. Tourism is still a huge industry and we don't want to stop that. A guest worker program that would fill the demands we have for unskilled labor would eliminate the incentive for individuals to sneak across to find work. Most employers wouldn't want to hire them if legal workers were available.

 

We also benefit from cross border economies. We have thousands of workers here that live on the US side and work in Mexico at the maquilla plants. They pay taxes and shop on the US side. Instead of moving a plant to China and losing all the jobs, we retain the managerial and only lose the manual labor, low skilled and low wage jobs. It also keeps those jobs in Mexico and helps ease the immigration problem.

 

Likewise, this area thrives on consumers from northern Mexico who spend hundreds of millions of dollars in our stores and vacationing. LaPlaza Mall is one of the countries busiest and most stores are in their top 5 in sales per square foot for their chains. That is almost all Mexican Nationals.

 

We say illegal is illegal, but we always balance the cost of enforcement against the cost of the crime. For example we invest Z dollars to fight speeding. We could eliminate speeding by spending $Zx1000, but it just isn't worth it. Businesses know they could eliminate shoplifting by requiring all customers to empty their pockets and be x-rayed on their way in and out of the store. But the loss in business outweighs the loss in product.

 

And would you want to live near that wall? You could make your home more secure by installing bars on the windows, have an armed guard outside your door, etc. but that detracts from your quality of life.