REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

IMMIGRATION: THE NEXT BIG FIGHT

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 04:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1417
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


For the record, I'm against illegal immigration. I have nothing against legal immigration: I'm married to a legal immigrant and am a child of a legal immigrant. However, my hubby (the immigrant) thinks that immigration should not be criminalized.
AGAINST IMMIGRATION
Quote:

Santa Barbara, Calif. – Walking the sandy beachfront in this ultra-affluent city, I chanced upon two Hispanic men rummaging through the trash. Startled at the sight, I stared momentarily. One of them yelled at me, “You look now, but in 50 years we will own all this!” Given the tsunami of illegal immigration and the prolific Hispanic birthrate, I responded, “I believe you will.”

US Census statistics suggest the scavenging man was right. California, now about 37 percent Latino, is expected to be majority Hispanic by 2042. A quarter of all Americans will probably be Latino in 40 years. This trend has worrisome aspects. Imagine a huge, growing Hispanic underclass in America with a grudge, a burning sense of having been victimized by the “gringos.” I witnessed this grudge up close a few years ago at Texas A&M International University in Laredo. Hispanic students challenged me, claiming any restriction of illegal immigration across the US southern border with Mexico is a violation of Latinos’ human rights.

Me: “Would you try to reenter Spain without a passport?

Students: “Of course not.”

Me: “What about France, or Britain?”

Students: “No.”

Yet many of these illegal Latino immigrants suffer the illusion they are divinely entitled to colonize the US and not just the states bordering Mexico, but Chicago and the East Coast as well. Some Hispanics talk openly of a reconquista, an effort to reclaim the American Southwest that once belonged to Mexico. Historically, this concept is wide of the mark. Most Hispanic ancestors of immigrants owned no land. Their forebears were serfs of the Roman Catholic Church, once the largest landholder in Latin America and the world. Other ancestors labored as landless peons for Spanish colonial landlords who were later relieved of their lands by 19th-century Anglo-Americans.

Historical entitlement is but one of the myths surrounding illegal Hispanic immigration. Gringos have their own fables, such as ultimate assimilation into a greater English-speaking society.

Professor Lawrence Harrison of Tufts University in Medford, Mass., notes that “In California, fourth- and fifth-generation Mexican immigrants are still speaking only Spanish and resisting assimilation.” He says there are serious cultural barriers to the old melting-pot concept. “Words like compromise and dissent, crucial concepts to American democracy, have radically different meanings in Spanish.” Dissent, for example, translates into “heresy.”

Most alarming, today’s influx of poor Latin American immigrants comes from countries less than congenial to democracy, a law-based society, or public education. Many experts look with alarm on the fact that, unlike earlier European and Asian immigrants, the tsunami from the south too often undervalues educating children because many Hispanic parents resent the idea that their children will have more education than they have. In 2000, only 25 percent of working-age male Mexican immigrants had graduated high school, a sad fact that contributes to an increasingly volatile underclass.

Limited legal Latino immigration greatly enriches the United States. I’ve personally seen how Hispanic Americans bring tremendous loyalty and leadership qualities to our armed forces

But it is morally shameful to expect taxpayers to fund free education and medical care for lawbreakers so that the wealthiest Americans – restaurant owners, ranchers, agribusiness owners, and construction companies – can hire cheap labor regardless of the national consequences.

It is ever the wealthy sticking it to the poor. With so many Americans losing their homes and unable to find jobs, it is outrageous to say Hispanics still take jobs no one else will do.Congress, which generally represents the wealthy, should begin by imposing huge fines on affluent Americans who hire illegals. Start with the millionaires in my neighborhood, who don’t mow their own lawns or baby-sit their children and instead hire immigrants who are almost certainly illegal.

Businessmen are bonkers if they think opening US borders to allow the free flow of uneducated labor will make America competitive with a burgeoning Chinese economy. Naive American liberals need to stop trilling over Emma Lazarus’s “Give me your tired, your poor,/ Your huddled masses….” World population was 1.5 billion when she penned those lines. It now approaches 7 billion. America is not a dumping ground for the rest of the world’s surplus population.

Committing national suicide is not without precedent. The Dutch are rapidly losing their country. Before long, its largest cities will belong to Muslim immigrants. What then becomes of the liberal tradition of Erasmus and traditional Dutch tolerance? Illegal immigration may ultimately be more threatening to the character and values of the US than any threat from radical Islamists. It’s not about tribe; it’s about the law.



BUT WHAT TO DO? NATIONAL BIOMETRIC ID?
Quote:

awmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain. Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.

The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past. The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.

"It's the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. "If you say they can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it."

The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.

"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."

Mr. Graham says he respects those concerns but disagrees. "We've all got Social Security cards," he said. "They're just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That's all I'm saying."

U.S. employers now have the option of using an online system called E-Verify to check whether potential employees are in the U.S. legally. Many Republicans have pressed to make the system mandatory. But others, including Mr. Schumer, complain that the existing system is ineffective.

Last year, White House aides said they expected to push immigration legislation in 2010. But with health care and unemployment dominating his attention, the president has given little indication the issue is a priority.

Rather, Mr. Obama has said he wanted to see bipartisan support in Congress first. So far, Mr. Graham is the only Republican to voice interest publicly, and he wants at least one other GOP co-sponsor to launch the effort.

An immigration overhaul has long proven a complicated political task. The Latino community is pressing for action and will be angry if it is put off again. But many Americans oppose any measure that resembles amnesty for people who came here illegally. Under the legislation envisioned by Messrs. Graham and Schumer, the estimated 10.8 million people living illegally in the U.S. would be offered a path to citizenship, though they would have to register, pay taxes, pay a fine and wait in line. A guest-worker program would let a set number of new foreigners come to the U.S. legally to work.

Most European countries require citizens and foreigners to carry ID cards. The U.K. had been a holdout, but in the early 2000s it considered national cards as a way to stop identify fraud, protect against terrorism and help stop illegal foreign workers. Amid worries about the cost and complaints that the cards infringe on personal privacy, the government said it would make them voluntary for British citizens. They are required for foreign workers and students, and so far about 130,000 cards have been issued.

Mr. Schumer first suggested a biometric-based employer-verification system last summer. Since then, the idea has gained currency and is now a centerpiece of the legislation being developed, aides said.

A person familiar with the legislative planning said the biometric data would likely be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand. It would be required of all workers, including teenagers, but would be phased in, with current workers needing to obtain the card only when they next changed jobs, the person said. The card requirement also would be phased in among employers, beginning with industries that typically rely on illegal-immigrant labor. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't have a position on the proposal, but it is concerned that employers would find it expensive and complicated to properly check the biometrics. Mr. Schumer said employers would be able to buy a scanner to check the IDs for as much as $800. Small employers, he said, could take their applicants to a government office to like the Department of Motor Vehicles and have their hands scanned there.

OTOH (so to speak), and error rate of even 1% would leave 1.5 MILLION workers at risk of being mis-identified as inelligible for work.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:19 PM

MINCINGBEAST


im always looking for the next big fight.

i would like to state, for the record, that my ancestors stole this land fair and square from the mexicans, and that we are not giving it back to them. ever!

but seriously, i'm conflicted on the topic. i don't think there's anything wrong with a state establishing, and maintaining, its borders. i do not think it is unreasonable to criminalize immigration that does not comply with the state's requirements. sort of a fundamental element of sovereignty, right?

i do, however, think that it is ridiculous to participate in an economic system (NAFTA!) that makes it necesary for people to immigrate, provides them no real legal avenue, and then exploits the shit out of them. We're happy to have their third-world-poverty-labor when it comes to picking our lettuce to keep wages down, but then we damn them for being here so we can exploit them.

my solution, no stupid biometic cards: import more decent, hard-working people (legal or not), and export t-baggers and jethros in return.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:23 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Or --- you could tank the economy and slow the flood of illegal immigrants to a trickle !

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:24 PM

CHRISISALL


Gattica.


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"... the tsunami from the south too often undervalues educating children because many Hispanic parents resent the idea that their children will have more education than they have."

This is something I have heard and observed.

Previous European immigrants valued education - I may have to scrub toilets but my CHILDREN will go to college.

OTOH Mexican, and Central and S Americans see children aspiring to more as an affront - what, I'm not good enough for you ?

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:30 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Just going to toss in: Controlling immigration might be one of those things that "big government" can do that no other entity can.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:31 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Now that I think about it ... the Social Security Administration already knows if there are several people on the same ID. It shouldn't take a genius to track down the employers who have failed to vet the numbers and fine them BIG TIME.

So, why not ?

What I see is that this is a way to keep corporations off the hook while putting the onus on the average citizen to somehow prove they are legal.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:45 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Just going to toss in: Controlling immigration might be one of those things that "big government" can do that no other entity can.

Finally! A REASON!!!

SUCCESS!!!!


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:17 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Now that I think about it ... the Social Security Administration already knows if there are several people on the same ID. It shouldn't take a genius to track down the employers who have failed to vet the numbers and fine them BIG TIME.

So, why not ?



A lot of it is privacy concerns. The Congress is very leery of giving anyone, even other Federal agencies, access to either SSA or IRS information keyed to Social Security numbers. Even IRS programmers who need large amounts of liove data to stress test tax processing programs have to develop sanitized data without real peoples' names and SSNs.

It is, by the way, illegal to hire illegal aliens. It's just very hard to research and enforce and prosecutions have been going down for the past ten years or so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I'm not saying give private info to private parties or even enforcement.

I'm saying that the SSA should give out EMPLOYER info to enforcement if EMPLOYERS are hiring illegal aliens. After all, EMPLOYERS can access the SSA database to see if the SS numbers are valid. If there are multiple people contributing to the SSA under one number then SOMEBODY has hired them without checking - or without caring that the number is invalid. Find out who. Go after them.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:43 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I'm not saying give private info to private parties or even enforcement.

I'm saying that the SSA should give out EMPLOYER info to enforcement if EMPLOYERS are hiring illegal aliens. After all, EMPLOYERS can access the SSA database to see if the SS numbers are valid. If there are multiple people contributing to the SSA under one number then SOMEBODY has hired them without checking - or without caring that the number is invalid. Find out who. Go after them.

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

Silence is consent.




That assumes anyone WANTS to go after them. SSA isn't complaining, because that's money that's being paid into the system two, three, or four times, and is only ever going to be paid OUT once.

Just thought it should be mentioned...




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:45 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Bah, streamline the immigration process.

"Hi, welcome to america, here's your W4!"

And then let those bastards at the IRS do something other than nitpick us for a while, given how ruthlessly efficient those assholes are.

Trust me, if they hadda pay the same hellspawned, life eatin taxes we did, they'd go runnin back over the border in a hurry.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:48 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Just thought it should be mentioned..."

Oh I know.

And the reason why people are talking about better, more improved IDs is b/c no one wants to make the EMPLOYERS accountable for hiring illegals under invalid SSA numbers. Because that would be going after businesses and we can't have that.

I'm just pointing out that there is a brick-simple easy-to-administer solution to this that nobody seems interested in voicing. And I'm also pointing out the reason why.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 2:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, the problem is that the database available to employers (I've used it) only checks names against numbers and can only tell you if there's a mismatch, not if the same number is being used in three different states.

And remember the bicoastal people? There are legitimate reasons why one number might show up in two different states.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


What kind of information is available to the employer through the EVA ?

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:53 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Well, it SHOULD be a pretty easy database search to have SSA do - look for any number that's being paid into in more than one state, and start weeding out from that. Turn some of it over to ICE or DepHomSec, and let them go around and verify who the REAL citizens are who are paying in, and who the impostors are, and they can handle the impostors at that point.

I'm not saying that would be the WHOLE solution, but it would probably go a good chunk of the way.

And if none of those departments can handle that kind of task, then why do we have them around in the first place? As Signy pointed out, this is PRECISELY the kind of thing that "big gubmint" should excel at. If we're going to have big gubmint, let's at least make some use of it!

Or admit that we really DON'T want all those illegals gone quite yet...




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:40 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

posted by Rue-

I'm just pointing out that there is a brick-simple easy-to-administer solution to this that nobody seems interested in voicing. And I'm also pointing out the reason why.




i think the social security cards original purpose was for employment purposes right? i dont see why we nned more then a Visa or other valid ID . my worry is once you accept the premise of a fereral ID card, it opens the door for unwarranted invasiveness. then the Govt will want you to carry it to enter libraries or schools or hospitals. then theyll say, well.. we cant be relied on to carry our IDs on us, at all times, so lets implant them! its definitately the slippery slope. and wouldnt they love to associate your person with what you buy, where your going? its too much

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

And the reason why people are talking about better, more improved IDs is b/c no one wants to make the EMPLOYERS accountable for hiring illegals under invalid SSA numbers. Because that would be going after businesses and we can't have that.



in my mind, i think securing the borders is probably the first step, given that we have a massive entitlement-wellfare state on the other side, (aldready bursting at the seams). figuring out some orderly way of identifying migrant workers, so that they dont settle and become recipients of government subsidies would be nice

but until we get the chance to dismantle this behemoth nanny state, the real problem to me is not so much the employers, but that the government has created a tax/regulatory climate here in America that prevents us from being competitive anymore. we're put in the position to export/import jobs. when Government burdens and penalizes industry to death, they cut corners where they can- thats why we dont produce or manufacturer hardly anything. look at our trade imbalance- there is no good reason for it.. we're the largest consumers in the world- imagine if we consumed our own products? we'd be exponentially wealthier. so figure out how to make it happen!!

the goal ought to be determining what tax/regulatory structure would be required for American industries to become domestically sufficient and competitive again. we have to address this if we're ever going to work on our trade deficit. what you dont want to do is what the current trend is, towards higher taxes, more regulation and more entitlements. because of this obsessive compulsiveness to micro manage everything, we end up suffocating ourselves. besides the obvious production/manufacturing deficiencies, an example of this would be we cant even go after our own oil resources, for heavens sakes.

i have to wonder if illegal immigration would be as big an issue if unemployment was at 2 or 3%- if they werent a burden on our (so-called) 'safety net'? it seems to me that if we were truly affluent, not in debt up to our ears, actually net-producers again, net savers.. that jobs and oppertunity would be so plentiful that the flow of inexpensive labor would be welcome.

but with the anti-capitalist sentiment taking over, its never going to happen. we'll be forever mired in debating the symptoms and never the disease. much of this is a result of unintended consequences from bad government policy. beyond the obvious over-regulation, there are policies like the minimum wage laws that arent helpfull. what good does a $9hr minimum wage do if a business cant hire someone at that? someone might do it for $5, maybe they could hire 2 workers at $10? someone might prefer that over no work at all.. and we all know some work isnt even worth the minimum wage. if a company cant hire legally at the state MW, the only person that benefits is the illegal worker

and we should definately look at reforming the federal drug laws, which would reduce the trafficking considerably. all these negative influences of government intervention! we have massive inflation in government subsidzed markets like energy, education, healthcare and housing, and we're working to give them more influence over the market. lots of problems thats for sure....









`

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:43 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Bah, streamline the immigration process.

"Hi, welcome to america, here's your W4!"

And then let those bastards at the IRS do something other than nitpick us for a while, given how ruthlessly efficient those assholes are.

Trust me, if they hadda pay the same hellspawned, life eatin taxes we did, they'd go runnin back over the border in a hurry.


I'd be LOLin' if it wasn't so, y'know, not so LOL worthy...


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Well, it SHOULD be a pretty easy database search to have SSA do...



Mike, it is easy to do. That's not the problem. Believe that I have practical experience with how dedicated the Congress is to keeping SSA and IRS info from being used for anything but SSA and IRS purposes.

When I was working on a system to do statistical analysis of tax data, we had to sanitize the data so it was impossible to identify any individual taxpayer; even to the extent of making the system refuse to provide data for a particular type taxpayer if there were so few in a particular geographic location that it would be possible to deduce who it was. And this was within the IRS.

Unless Congress changes the laws to allow it, using SSA or IRS data to find either illegals or folks who hire them is a non-starter. I suspect that one of the problems the health care bill will hit is this emphasis on privacy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:10 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Thanks for the clarification, Geezer. As with so many things, it would be easy to do, but there would be a HUGE outcry if anyone officially proposed doing it.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:10 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I'm again stuck in the middle. I despise people who smuggle immigrants across the border, but more because of what those immigrants suffer than anything else.

I think the problem is too big to go after, even if employers wanted to do (which of course they don't). Given how many illegals there are in the country, it's an impossible task to find them all, which makes it a near-impossible task to find all their employers, in my opinion.

I don't like the idea of a national ID, I see to much chance of misuse. I'd like another answer, but I don't see one...and enforcing our borders is something I don't see as possible, either--it's too many miles with too few people to enforce it.

So I have no answers to postulate. Just that I hate it, but I don't hate the people themselves.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"... using SSA or IRS data to find either illegals or folks who hire them is a non-starter."

Why ? Especially if it is a company, which is a public entity.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:16 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I'm again stuck in the middle. I despise people who smuggle immigrants across the border, but more because of what those immigrants suffer than anything else.

I think the problem is too big to go after, even if employers wanted to do (which of course they don't). Given how many illegals there are in the country, it's an impossible task to find them all, which makes it a near-impossible task to find all their employers, in my opinion.

I don't like the idea of a national ID, I see to much chance of misuse. I'd like another answer, but I don't see one...and enforcing our borders is something I don't see as possible, either--it's too many miles with too few people to enforce it.

So I have no answers to postulate. Just that I hate it, but I don't hate the people themselves.



I find myself in much the same boat. I keep hearing various candidates being described as "anti-illegal immigration" - and I have to wonder, are they implying that there are candidates out there who are running on a platform of being PRO-illegal immigration? Can anyone show me where these alleged candidates have said in their speeches that this would be a better nation if only more people would come here illegally? Better yet, maybe Rappy could find a video of such claims being made, since that seems to be the new standard of evidence in his world! Still waiting for that death threat video against Cantor. Haven't seen it, can't find it - guess he made it all up, eh?

As to securing our borders: good luck with that. People who've never been anywhere near our borders have this imagined solution where we just put up a twenty foot wall, and then rely on our neighbors to the south (and, to a lesser extent, the north) to NOT start selling twenty-one foot ladders on the other side. HOW do you legitimately propose that we secure thousands of miles of borders? Better still, how do you out there who are so concerned about "big gubmint" and its overreaching intrusion into our lives propose that we secure our borders, without either becoming more intrusive into everyone's lives who lives in any border state, AND without growing the big nasty evil federal gubmint?




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:31 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I don't think we should, nor will we ever, find all employers - especially not individuals who hire nannies or 'casual help' off the local parking lot. But there are enough large employers - corporations - who hire illegals by the dozens if not hundreds that could be prosecuted. They are large construction companies, agriculture, garment manufacturers, chicken producers, janitorial and housekeeping companies etc. These are viable targets for enforcement.

I would start with a list of lobbyists and campaign contributors who support amnesty and better IDs (anything BUT targeting employers) - it could reveal which sectors have the largest concerns about a supply of illegals drying up.

Still waiting for an answer from Geezer about the use of SSA's database to find corporate employers who hire illegals.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:33 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Rue, I think Geezer addressed that already, in that SSA & IRS simply *WILL NOT* allow data to be used by other agencies if it might possibly someday somehow be used to track down actual real people.

At least, that's how I took his response.

And while I can see your point perfectly clearly, and while I agree with you, I see his point as well - and yes, you can 100% ironclad guarantee that those who are right now screaming the loudest about illegals, would also be the same folks screaming the loudest about "gubmint intrusion" if anyone seriously proposed doing anything like this. Folks hate it enough when the IRS goes looking into their tax records; how bad do you think it would get if Immigration or Homeland Security got to poke around in the IRS database, or the Social Security Administration's database?

The right would absolutely shit brick kittens if that were so much as MENTIONED, much less if anyone tried to bring such an idea to the floor of the House or Senate...




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:28 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Rue, I think Geezer addressed that already, in that SSA & IRS simply *WILL NOT* allow data to be used by other agencies if it might possibly someday somehow be used to track down actual real people.




Actually, it's more like Congress won't allow SSA or IRS to provide data to other agencies.

Don't know about SSA, but the IRS issues with Congress over disclosure go back at least to when the first IRS computers (IBM 360s) were first being installed. Congress mandated that data sent from the processing centers where the tax return information was input had to be copied to tape for shipment to the computing centers, rather than being transmitted by wire (even on dedicated lines and encrypted) due to fears of disclosure of tax info. The Nixon enemies list stuff also caused a backlash. Penalties for unauthorized access of taxpayer data are severe. Back in the late 60s we had one lady in Atlanta fired and jailed for looking up Elvis' return, just out of curiosity. Fines and jail terms are even higher now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:32 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Again, thanks for clarifying further, Geeze.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 1, 2010 12:07 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

I don't think we should, nor will we ever, find all employers - especially not individuals who hire nannies or 'casual help' off the local parking lot. But there are enough large employers - corporations - who hire illegals by the dozens if not hundreds that could be prosecuted. They are large construction companies, agriculture, garment manufacturers, chicken producers, janitorial and housekeeping companies etc. These are viable targets for enforcement.



why do they hire cheap labor? because its the only way they can stay in business here in America. 1st thing we have to do is create an economic climate that enables American companies to compete HERE again. thatll never happen with the anti-capitalists running washington, regulating people and business to death

and in the meantime, get rid of the minimum wage laws. we could shave a few percentage points off the unemployment rate by that alone

and of course, address the incentive created by the 'lefts' sacred cow, and deconstruct the wellfare state! they cant abuse a wellfare state that doesnt exist

nobody had any rebuttals to my prior response? i listed a number of policy changes that would be helpfull. i garauntee going after Americans with mandatory ID cards, or chasing domestic companies oversees isnt the answer


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 1, 2010 12:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"why do they hire cheap labor? because its the only way they can stay in business here in America. 1st thing we have to do is create an economic climate that enables American companies to compete HERE again. thatll never happen with the anti-capitalists running washington, regulating people and business to death"


I'm bored.


May I point out just briefly that the regulations you THINK are so detrimental have somehow kept most of Europe out of the economic quagmire the US has deeply sunk itself into - you know, all the huge banks, investment companies and insurances that went belly-up just a few short months ago ... or maybe you forgot about them ?

It's not regulations that cause the problem Einstein. How 'bout you do a little thinking and come back when you have a clue ?

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 8:20 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Rue-

May I point out just briefly that the regulations you THINK are so detrimental have somehow kept most of Europe out of the economic quagmire the US has deeply sunk itself into



with all due respect, i disagree with your premise. if you look at GDP alone, several european countries had a greater annual decline then the US did through 2008/'09- starting maybe back in 2006. not that GDP is the only indicator, but many European countries have been hit harder then we have, believe it or not

but if lack of regulation was the cause, why the failures in current regulation? how did this happen to begin with.. i thought the New Deal, the creation of the SEC and FDIC was to prevent this? going farther back, this was why the Federal Reserve was created!.. to ensure stability in the marketplace, to prevent inflation and secure low unemployment rates. it hasnt happened! in fact we're arguably worse off now then we were 80 years ago

Quote:

you know, all the huge banks, investment companies and insurances that went belly-up just a few short months ago ... or maybe you forgot about them ?


but what was the cause? its my understanding that a steady rise in housing prices caused many banks to malinvest in these mortgage backed securities; when the housing bubble burst, this then precipitated many of the banking failures. the government responds with TARP, threatening to nationalize banks and so forth, which just exhaserbated the problem.

people like to use Enron as this example of laissez faire capitalism run amok- so government creates the the Sarbanes-Oxley act, in response to this 'threat' of corporate accounting manipulation. well.. if all this precious regulation was so effective, with all we had in place, shouldnt we have caught these massive bank failures, before they occurred?

most experts believe it was the rise in oil prices that really contributed to the US recession of '08. and then of course artificially low interest rates and government subsidies in housing had no role what-so-ever in all this.. right?

Quote:

It's not regulations that cause the problem Einstein. How 'bout you do a little thinking and come back when you have a clue ?


why dont you get a clue. if it werent for government, the Fed, the FDIC, we wouldnt have this policy of 'too big too fail', which creates the moral hazard of excessive risk taking. if it werent for precious government 'regulation', we wouldnt have bailed out GM, AIG, and these other banks that liberals hate so much



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 26, 2021 3:55 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 3, 2024 4:49 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:10 - 4778 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL