Immigration law

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So, what specifically is the racist view? UK's perception that crime syndicates from Eastern Europe, Nigeria, and the horn of Africa is actually racism and no such crime syndicates exist? I still don't see how racism is the most likely thing going on here. Or maybe it's just really late and I'm confused.

Mel's post is pretty clear. He is not reporting that people in the UK are simply aware that their are crime syndicates of immigrants from Eastern Europe, Nigeria, and the Horn of Africa. That almost goes without saying. The crux of his post is that in the UK there is a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior. Hence my response.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think it's the culture. Some cultures will teach that someone else is to blame for their predicament and that it's ok to do whatever is necessary to even the score and balance things out. Ila, it sounds like the culture you're from relies more on their selves to create their own destiny, which I find much more admirable.... unless of course you're a jew and hezbolah is lobbing rockets at you and then you might have a very good reason to believe that another group of people is to blame for your misery.

I think this post requires some explanation, Tracy.

Please define "culture" as you mean it here.

Please clarify your point about Jews and Hezbollah. And I would advise strongly that you make a distinction between "Jews" and "Israelis" or, more accurately, "Zionists." Not all Jews are Zionists.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

I base my statement not just on my own experience, but from what I have seen. When I was young most of my friends were considered poor or at least low income. None of my friends turned to crime. We did, however, turn out to be independant, self reliant, and hardworking.

I have met many poor people in my travels and the majority did not turn to crime to survive. Naturally there are those that have turned to crime. I would say it's sloth that causes a person to turn to crime rather than being poor.

I have often noticed that very conservative people tend to equate "sloth" and lazyness as causing a person to turn to crime. Actually, I think there are basically two types of criminals, the ones that get caught and the ones that don't. The IQ of prison inmates is around 80, they are pretty stupid so they get caught. The bright ones are on Wall Street. Criminals are people that have no respect for laws and are willing to take much higher risks than the rest of us.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Mel's post is pretty clear. He is not reporting that people in the UK are simply aware that their are crime syndicates of immigrants from Eastern Europe, Nigeria, and the Horn of Africa. That almost goes without saying. The crux of his post is that in the UK there is a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior. Hence my response.

Ok, let's analyze....

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

The general perception in the United Kingdom with its unchecked European, Indian and African immigration of the past eight years is that crime syndicates, particularly from Eastern Europe, Nigeria and the horn of Africa, have prospered and expanded their spheres of operation, particularly in the child sex-trade. Governments, almost without exception, will invariably deny that there is a problem, but it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity.

It would be interesting to have figures to show if rises in levels of immigration across Western Europe, and North America have occurred in the past ten years, and if so, what the percentages are. Prison figures might also show a correspondence, if one exists.

The part in red is the part you say he is not reporting. The part in blue is what Mel Asher wants to see, and you've already said that you were not attributing racism to Mel's beliefs. So that leaves the part in black, which states that governments deny there's a problem. No racism there. But then also states that police and the general public have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity. Is that what lead to you saying

Originally Posted by smc

This is a racist view, pure and simple, painting with a broad brush immigrants as generally linked to crime syndicates. Racism, racism, racism.

This is what you claim is the crux of his post, which is that in the UK there is a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior. The interesting part here is the part that leads you to cry racism is the part being in the context of this forum. How can attitudes in the UK be shown by the context of this thread to be racist? The only part of Mel's post that is in the context of this thread are his personal observations cited in his posting.

"it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity"
=
"a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior"

Originally Posted by smc

I think this post requires some explanation, Tracy.

Please define "culture" as you mean it here.

Culture: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time.

Originally Posted by smc

Please clarify your point about Jews and Hezbollah. And I would advise strongly that you make a distinction between "Jews" and "Israelis" or, more accurately, "Zionists." Not all Jews are Zionists.

Like I said it was late. Like after 2am and I really just wanted to get on with downloading porn. Yes, I should have said Israelis, as they are the ones who are being littered with rockets. I would like to further specify which street adresses are most prone to bombing but that would further divert me from my daily dose of porn. I wouldn't use the term "Zionists" because not all Zionists live in Israel and are bombed by rockets.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

I have often noticed that very conservative people tend to equate "sloth" and lazyness as causing a person to turn to crime. Actually, I think there are basically two types of criminals, the ones that get caught and the ones that don't.

Back to the subject of the thread. The Arizona law has police officers checking the citizenship of law breakers who exhibit signs of also being illegal aliens (such as driving without a valid drivers license among other things). These would already be law breakers, and if it turns out they are also illegal aliens they are by definition breaking even more laws. Regardless of what motivated them to breaking laws, what's wrong with booting them out of the country?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Back to the subject of the thread. The Arizona law has police officers checking the citizenship of law breakers who exhibit signs of also being illegal aliens (such as driving without a valid drivers license among other things). These would already be law breakers, and if it turns out they are also illegal aliens they are by definition breaking even more laws. Regardless of what motivated them to breaking laws, what's wrong with booting them out of the country?

We have every right to boot them out. We need to figure out how to discourage them from coming here in the first place. A start would be to revise NAFTA so that peasant farmers in Mexico and Central America can make a decent living on their small farms. ADM and other big US subsidized farming corporations now flood NAFTA countries with cheap grains and powdered milk putting local farmers and dairies out of business.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The part in red is the part you say he is not reporting.

Read carefully what I said he was "not reporting" again, and fully, and in the context of the subsequent sentence(s). I simply do not have the mental energy to continue our discussion until you become a more careful reader, so I don't have to keep writing over and over again to explain what I did not write but that you insist on attributing to me. Or perhaps you are a master sophist (you can look that up), in which case our discussion truly has nowhere to go.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by randolph

We have every right to boot them out. We need to figure out how to discourage them from coming here in the first place. A start would be to revise NAFTA so that peasant farmers in Mexico and Central America can make a decent living on their small farms. ADM and other big US subsidized farming corporations now flood NAFTA countries with cheap grains and powdered milk putting local farmers and dairies out of business.

That's exactly the point I made earlier in the thread. People often just assume that the grass is greener in America, but it is only because NAFTA and agricultural subsidies have destroyed the way of life of indigenous farmers. Modifying NAFTA and getting rid of subsidies would be a start in the right direction.

But what do we do with the millions of illegals already here? I propose we make it impossible for them to find gainful work by imposing such harsh penalties upon businesses that might hire them, that no business dares hire illegals. Further, those that perpetrate the trade of illegal/fake papers should be given prison sentences just shy of the death penalty.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by GRH

That's exactly the point I made earlier in the thread. People often just assume that the grass is greener in America, but it is only because NAFTA and agricultural subsidies have destroyed the way of life of indigenous farmers. Modifying NAFTA and getting rid of subsidies would be a start in the right direction.

But what do we do with the millions of illegals already here? I propose we make it impossible for them to find gainful work by imposing such harsh penalties upon businesses that might hire them, that no business dares hire illegals. Further, those that perpetrate the trade of illegal/fake papers should be given prison sentences just shy of the death penalty.

I wonder why our politicians don't seem to recognize the fundamental issues involved in this immigration problem.
Well I suppose if we legalized drugs they could go back to their farms and grow the stuff that many in this country crave.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

But what do we do with the millions of illegals already here? I propose we make it impossible for them to find gainful work by imposing such harsh penalties upon businesses that might hire them, that no business dares hire illegals.

That's what the courts have said is legal. Obama wants the supreme court to rule that it's illegal though. What are his intentions? If we were to judge him (and several other politicians) based on his actions we would have to conclude that he wants this country to be crawling with illegals.

[Rachel]

Havent been here in a while but thought I must throw my hat into the ring. First and foremost... How can we be a country if there are no borders? Look up immigration laws in Mexico. Everything is a Felony. We need a fence. A .50 cal fence every half mile.

[TracyCoxx]

Here's something Obama's news networks won't tell you. Due to our govenrment's negligence, and ultimately BO's negligence (when he canceled construction of the fence that Rachel mentioned) was the straw that broke the camel's back... Not only has our borders been breached, the US has actually lost 3500 acres of land, including an 80 mile section of the border, to Mexico.

This land, which is part of the US, is actually off limits to Americans!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16...der-americans/

McCain and law enforcement there have requested 3000 troops to retake the land and secure the border there.

Again, just going by BO's actions, what is he trying to accomplish? Why would he cancel construction of the fence on what is recognized as the gateway for illegal aliens?

He's trying to change the demographics of the country, and if drug lords get through as well, who cares right?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Here's something Obama's news networks won't tell you. Due to our govenrment's negligence, and ultimately BO's negligence (when he canceled construction of the fence that Rachel mentioned) was the straw that broke the camel's back... Not only has our borders been breached, the US has actually lost 3500 acres of land, including an 80 mile section of the border, to Mexico.

This land, which is part of the US, is actually off limits to Americans!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16...der-americans/

McCain and law enforcement there have requested 3000 troops to retake the land and secure the border there.

Again, just going by BO's actions, what is he trying to accomplish? Why would he cancel construction of the fence on what is recognized as the gateway for illegal aliens?

He's trying to change the demographics of the country, and if drug lords get through as well, who cares right?

How convenient it must be to forget history so you can make your points and support your positions. Who had that land taken from them in the first place?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

How convenient it must be to forget history so you can make your points and support your positions. Who had that land taken from them in the first place?

If your point is that we should return the US to the Indians I don't think that discussion will go very far.

This is a severe breach of US sovereignty pure and simple.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If your point is that we should return the US to the Indians I don't think that discussion will go very far.

This is a severe breach of US sovereignty pure and simple.

Throughout history, lands have been occupied and overrun by invading populations. Modern humans displaced the Neanderthals in Europe. That's just the way things are. However, it is usually the result of weakness on the part of residents that allow the invaders to succeed.
The situation here is somewhat different but the the effects may be the same. A Latin culture will become predominant while the traditional northern European culture will fade away. Its happening already just look at the ethnic population in the schools. Here in S. Calif. its at least 80% Hispanic.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If your point is that we should return the US to the Indians I don't think that discussion will go very far.

This is a severe breach of US sovereignty pure and simple.

Actually, my point was general and my specific reference was not to the Indians but to Texas having been part of Mexico. But my real question is whether you are willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Actually, my point was general and my specific reference was not to the Indians but to Texas having been part of Mexico. But my real question is whether you are willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

This land that is now under the control of mexican gangs and drug lords is in Arizona, not Texas. Either way, the land is now supposed to be part of the US because of the Mexican American war of 1847 and the following Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo.

But your point that vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America sounds fascinating. Please tell me more.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This land that is now under the control of mexican gangs and drug lords is in Arizona, not Texas. Either way, the land is now supposed to be part of the US because of the Mexican American war of 1847 and the following Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo.

But your point that vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America sounds fascinating. Please tell me more.

Once again, I must point out that you put words in my mouth. I defy you to show where I made the point that "vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America."

This is not the first time in this thread that you put words in my mouth. It is a classic -- and wholly discredited approach in an argument: the logical fallacy of the "strawman attack." Put words in your opponent's mouth and then either attack the resulting position, while simultaneously evading the real point made by your opponent, or see if you can bait your opponent into continuing down the falsely created discussion path.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Once again, I must point out that you put words in my mouth. I defy you to show where I made the point that "vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America."

This is not the first time in this thread that you put words in my mouth. It is a classic -- and wholly discredited approach in an argument: the logical fallacy of the "strawman attack." Put words in your opponent's mouth and then either attack the resulting position, while simultaneously evading the real point made by your opponent, or see if you can bait your opponent into continuing down the falsely created discussion path.

It's not an intentional strawman argument. I think my problem is I assumed you had a point to make in post 63. I assumed your remark was disagreement in what I had said which I took as agreement with the opposite of what I said. Then you brought up the vexing social problems, which I assumed you thought relevant to this thread and... I assumed, related to what I thought was your disagreement.

Back to your real question: Whether I am willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

Tell me what the vexing social problem is and maybe I can answer your question.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It's not an intentional strawman argument. I think my problem is I assumed you had a point to make in post 63. I assumed your remark was disagreement in what I had said which I took as agreement with the opposite of what I said. Then you brought up the vexing social problems, which I assumed you thought relevant to this thread and... I assumed, related to what I thought was your disagreement.

Back to your real question: Whether I am willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

Tell me what the vexing social problem is and maybe I can answer your question.

Well, I guess the first paragraph of your quoted post above is the equivalent of "I'm sorry I put words in your mouth," so although those words don't appear, I'll assume you are practicing to run for office and this is the kind of apology that will be expected if you say something you wish you could take back afterwards.

The vexing social problems are poverty and immigration. The overwhelming majority of undocumented workers who come here from Mexico do so because they are dirt poor and there is so little hope and opportunity in their home country to lift themselves out of poverty. That is why there is so huge a business in individual sending of money from the United States to Mexico: undocumented workers here are supporting their families back home. In many other cases, entire families come here -- for the same reason. This primary motivating factor for crossing our southern border is undeniable, and anyone who denies it -- whatever her or his political perspective -- cannot be taken seriously.

I could write a long treatise on why Mexico is so poor, or -- more accurately -- why so many Mexicans are so poor (the nation itself is quite rich with natural resources). Suffice it to say here, in the interest of brevity, that the hand of the United States, over well more than a century of direct and indirect intervention, is all over today's Mexican reality.

The question of "illegal immigration" poses a question of whether the United States wants to remain the beacon to the world it has always purported to be. The voices of reaction simplistically speak of militarizing the border, throwing people out, breaking up families, and so on. Many of these immigrants are hardworking people who contribute to the economy in a number of ways. Again, anyone who denies this fact cannot be taken seriously.

The United States loses its purported moral authority whenever we paint a problem with so broad a brush as to equate, either implicitly or explicitly, everyone in a particular group with the heinous actions of a few. Tracy, you do this implictly with your multiple posts equating Mexican workers and Mexican drug runners, Mexican drug cartel members, Mexican criminals engaged in the drug wars.

The reaction that is inherent in ridiculous statements such as Obama is "trying to change the demographics of the country" and "if drug lords get through as well, who cares right?" is just plain unserious. Of course, I am not you, but I would be embarrassed to make such statements. They do not suggest that you want to have a thoughtful discussion about how to solve problems, but that you are a reactionary (and I mean that in the dictionary definition, not as a slur against conservatives). I mean, really, it is almost as ridiculous as the view that Obama wasn't born in the United States.

[GRH]

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots ? the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. ? for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona ? and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution ? to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists ? things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave.

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz0qgECrHZS

I saw this posted at another forum I visit. Personally, I'm a BIG fan of amending the Constitution so that citizenship is conferred by birth to citizens of America and not by birth on American soil.

These "anchor babies" allow many illegal immigrants to stay here illegally and suck at the welfare tit. If we can't amend the Constitution to do away with "birth by soil" than I propose that we make it VERY unattractive for these "citizen babies." In short, the legal citizen child of illegal immigrants shall be IMMEDIATELY confiscated as a ward of the state and treated as a ward until they reach 18. The illegal parents lose ALL custody rights and are immediately deported back to their country of origin.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

I saw this posted at another forum I visit. Personally, I'm a BIG fan of amending the Constitution so that citizenship is conferred by birth to citizens of America and not by birth on American soil.

These "anchor babies" allow many illegal immigrants to stay here illegally and suck at the welfare tit. If we can't amend the Constitution to do away with "birth by soil" than I propose that we make it VERY unattractive for these "citizen babies." In short, the legal citizen child of illegal immigrants shall be IMMEDIATELY confiscated as a ward of the state and treated as a ward until they reach 18. The illegal parents lose ALL custody rights and are immediately deported back to their country of origin.

Current efforts to abolish birthright citizenship in the United States are as much folly as they have been in the past. More important, they are yet another example of how quick so many are to jump to facile solutions that are based on emotional reactions to difficult issues, but that fail to address the fundamental, underlying issues behind complex social problems.

The most obvious problem with what GRH proposes is that it would punish children, for 18 years, for the actions of their parents. Think about it: independent of the merit of your proposal, children -- completely innocent in that they were not the perpetrators of the violation of the law -- would be turned into victims. You can argue that they are being victimized by their irresponsible parents, but do you want to have, on your hands, the responsibility for having taken them from mom and dad, having them be raised in the tenuous uncertainty of being a ward of the state (and thus subject to all the exigencies that affect state-run programs), and so on?

The rest of my argument, I want to make clear, is general about the proposal. I do not believe that GRH has specifically stated any of these things, only that the proposal -- and the movement against birthright citizenship provided by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- has these elements.

So, to begin, let's debunk any notion that this represents a "simple reform" -- as George Will claimed in a Washington Post op-ed some time ago on the subject. It is much, much more, and would have significant consequences for the United States. For instance, it would place a burden on every American, who would potentially have to document her or his own claim to citizenship. There is considerable research to suggest that it would, in fact, increase the number of stateless individuals without legal status who reside in the United States. Where would these people be deported to, if caught? What happens when countries of the world say that they are unwilling to accept deportees from the United States, because they are not citizens of the country to which the United States wants to send them? Prisons? Workhouses? Detention camps?

The idea that repealing the 14th Amendment is a cure to a broken immigration system is folly. It is yet another reaction, built on emotion by those who seem unwilling to have a complex discussion about a complex problem that transcends the relatively straightforward issue of citizenship. It ignores the root causes of our immigration problems (see my posts earlier). Doctors will tell you that treatment is infinitely more effective when you can treat the disease itself, not the symptoms. The plethora of undocumented immigrants in our country is a symptom, not the disease.

The calls for repeal of the 14th Amendment have a long history in nativism and racism. I am not accusing anyone on this forum who supports the repeal as nativists or racists. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the history of the arguments over the period since Reconstruction, when the 14th Amendment was enacted. Studying this history, and the arguments on both sides, is quite revealing. It is unfortunate when those who support repeal today fail to dissociate themselves explicitly from the tradition of this movement, which is a very ugly one indeed.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The vexing social problems are poverty and immigration. The overwhelming majority of undocumented workers who come here from Mexico do so because they are dirt poor and there is so little hope and opportunity in their home country to lift themselves out of poverty. That is why there is so huge a business in individual sending of money from the United States to Mexico: undocumented workers here are supporting their families back home. In many other cases, entire families come here -- for the same reason. This primary motivating factor for crossing our southern border is undeniable, and anyone who denies it -- whatever her or his political perspective -- cannot be taken seriously.

Ahh there's where I got confused. When I was talking about drug lords and gangs in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge you were talking about undocumented workers aka illegal immigrants. How silly of me, I should have known better. Yes, we all know that's why the every day run of the mill illegal immigrant are here. Not that that means we shouldn't try and keep illegal immigrants out. What does any of this have to do with closing down Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to Americans?

Originally Posted by smc

I could write a long treatise on why Mexico is so poor, or -- more accurately -- why so many Mexicans are so poor (the nation itself is quite rich with natural resources). Suffice it to say here, in the interest of brevity, that the hand of the United States, over well more than a century of direct and indirect intervention, is all over today's Mexican reality.

Classic blame America rhetoric. With all of Mexico's abundant natural resources, the Mexican government had nothing to do with their poverty??

Originally Posted by smc

The question of "illegal immigration" poses a question of whether the United States wants to remain the beacon to the world it has always purported to be. The voices of reaction simplistically speak of militarizing the border, throwing people out, breaking up families, and so on. Many of these immigrants are hardworking people who contribute to the economy in a number of ways. Again, anyone who denies this fact cannot be taken seriously.

Yes, we have a system for bringing in LEGAL immigrants. And we would probably be able to bring in a lot more LEGAL immigrants if we weren't so overrun with illegal immigrants.

Originally Posted by smc

The reaction that is inherent in ridiculous statements such as Obama is "trying to change the demographics of the country".

I hope that is a ridiculous statement. The fact that Obama wanted to move the US Census under control of the White House and have it run by Acorn workers shouldn't lead one to think that. The fact that Obama canceled construction of a fence in Arizona despite the millions of illegals coming in there shouldn't lead one to think he's trying to change the demographics. The fact that he is asking the supreme court to over turn a state's ability to punish businesses who hire illegals shouldn't lead one to think that either.

That's why I'm bringing these things up here in this thread. Because looking at only his actions without hearing any of his reasoning, without giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think the only logical conclusion of his actions alone, is that he's trying to change the demographics of America. But I'm not hearing his reasons. And it's getting harder and harder to give him the benefit of the doubt when he consistently comes down on the side of letting illegals live and work here. So enlighten me. Have you or anyone else heard his reasons?

Originally Posted by smc

I mean, really, it is almost as ridiculous as the view that Obama wasn't born in the United States.

Uh, was that mentioned in this thread?

[Rachel]

Darn Tracy beat me to all the good comebacks! lol But lets call a Spade a Spade shall we SMC? They arent "undocumented workers" or any of the other politically correct niceties. They are Illegal Aliens. They are criminals.They didnt immigrate here. They entered the Country illegally. And they are a drain to our society not contributors. From all the free charity healthcare they get to local cities building shelters in muster zones. They dont pay taxes yet their children attend our schools.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Rachel

Darn Tracy beat me to all the good comebacks! lol But lets call a Spade a Spade shall we SMC? They arent "undocumented workers" or any of the other politically correct niceties. They are Illegal Aliens. They are criminals.They didnt immigrate here. They entered the Country illegally. And they are a drain to our society not contributors. From all the free charity healthcare they get to local cities building shelters in muster zones. They dont pay taxes yet their children attend our schools.

I am more afraid of living in an America where people who think as you write above -- reactionary, vitriolic, nativist, short-sighted, etc. -- are in charge than of living in a country overrun by the people you so easily belittle.

By the way, I use "undocumented worker" not as a PC nicety, but because I refuse to take the simplistic road of simply criminalizing behavior that has, at its root, the human yearning for a better life free of poverty and degradation.

It's so easy for we Americans to sit on our high horses, but I wonder what any of us would do were the tables turned. How about you, Rachel. I understand you have a gun. If your family was dirt poor, had no prospects for getting food, lived in rural Mexico and was subjected to all difficulties brought upon by gangs, murderers, and so on, might you pack them up and try to move somewhere safer and with more opportunity? Might you pick up that gun and use it (even "illegally)?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ahh there's where I got confused. When I was talking about drug lords and gangs in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge you were talking about undocumented workers aka illegal immigrants. How silly of me, I should have known better. Yes, we all know that's why the every day run of the mill illegal immigrant are here. Not that that means we shouldn't try and keep illegal immigrants out. What does any of this have to do with closing down Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to Americans?

Classic blame America rhetoric. With all of Mexico's abundant natural resources, the Mexican government had nothing to do with their poverty??

Yes, we have a system for bringing in LEGAL immigrants. And we would probably be able to bring in a lot more LEGAL immigrants if we weren't so overrun with illegal immigrants.

I hope that is a ridiculous statement. The fact that Obama wanted to move the US Census under control of the White House and have it run by Acorn workers shouldn't lead one to think that. The fact that Obama canceled construction of a fence in Arizona despite the millions of illegals coming in there shouldn't lead one to think he's trying to change the demographics. The fact that he is asking the supreme court to over turn a state's ability to punish businesses who hire illegals shouldn't lead one to think that either.

That's why I'm bringing these things up here in this thread. Because looking at only his actions without hearing any of his reasoning, without giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think the only logical conclusion of his actions alone, is that he's trying to change the demographics of America. But I'm not hearing his reasons. And it's getting harder and harder to give him the benefit of the doubt when he consistently comes down on the side of letting illegals live and work here. So enlighten me. Have you or anyone else heard his reasons?

Uh, was that mentioned in this thread?

Many posts ago, Tracy, I suggested that you might be a "master sophist" and encouraged you to look up the word. I don't suspect you did.

In ancient Greece, there was a class of teachers who dealt with philosophy, rhetoric, and politics, and who mastered the "art" of using fallacious but plausible reasoning.

I grow exhausted by your sophistry. You either pretend not to understand how argument works or really do not, but in either case you keep ascribing either explicit or implicit statements or intents to your opponent. Any mention of anything in the argument by your opponent is subjected to the scrutiny of whether it was mentioned previously (this is only relevant if someone actually says you said something and then takes it on; otherwise, in argument one certainly has the right to raise analogous statements, references, etc., so long as it is done fairly). You change the goalposts of the discussion, and you bring in early referents as if they were the most recent subjects of the rhetoric.

I am so exhausted by having to spend time discussing how you argue, rather than only the substance of your points. Were you a student in my university rhetoric class, I would put you on "probation" and get you some tutoring, and that would be irrespective of your positions on any subject. It would be about how to argue.

You can read what I wrote just above and declare victory if you wish, but remember that there are many kinds of victories. If you simply exhaust your opponent with sophistry, as the early Sophists learned, yours may indeed be a Pyrrhic victory for your position in the end.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Rachel

Darn Tracy beat me to all the good comebacks! lol But lets call a Spade a Spade shall we SMC? They aren't "undocumented workers" or any of the other politically correct niceties. They are Illegal Aliens. They are criminals.They didn't immigrate here. They entered the Country illegally. And they are a drain to our society not contributors. From all the free charity health care they get to local cities building shelters in muster zones. They don't pay taxes yet their children attend our schools.

Tracy, you are absolutely right, they are illegal aliens. You are wrong about the taxes. They come up here to work to support their families. They obtain fake documentation and are hired as if they were legal. Income taxes and SS taxes are deducted from their paychecks. They do jobs that spoiled Americans are unwilling to do. They clean motel rooms, wash dishes, pick fruit, hoe weeds and raise our crops. These are essential services and alien workers do it cheaply and without complaining. The main problem is they bring their families up here. The wife and children put a strain on public services, health care, schools and housing.
My agricultural company could not have survived without these hardworking guys from Mexico and Guatemala willing to work nine hours a day six days a week for a modest wage.
We cannot stop them from coming up here. What needs to be done is once they have a job, give them a work permit that allows them to legally travel back and forth to Mexico so they can leave their families there where it is much cheaper for them to live.

Unfortunately, our political system is so fucked up, the situation will never be resolved.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Many posts ago, Tracy, I suggested that you might be a "master sophist" and encouraged you to look up the word. I don't suspect you did.

In ancient Greece, there was a class of teachers who dealt with philosophy, rhetoric, and politics, and who mastered the "art" of using fallacious but plausible reasoning.

I grow exhausted by your sophistry. You either pretend not to understand how argument works or really do not, but in either case you keep ascribing either explicit or implicit statements or intents to your opponent. Any mention of anything in the argument by your opponent is subjected to the scrutiny of whether it was mentioned previously (this is only relevant if someone actually says you said something and then takes it on; otherwise, in argument one certainly has the right to raise analogous statements, references, etc., so long as it is done fairly). You change the goalposts of the discussion, and you bring in early referents as if they were the most recent subjects of the rhetoric.

I am so exhausted by having to spend time discussing how you argue, rather than only the substance of your points. Were you a student in my university rhetoric class, I would put you on "probation" and get you some tutoring, and that would be irrespective of your positions on any subject. It would be about how to argue.

You can read what I wrote just above and declare victory if you wish, but remember that there are many kinds of victories. If you simply exhaust your opponent with sophistry, as the early Sophists learned, yours may indeed be a Pyrrhic victory for your position in the end.

LOL keep your red herrings to yourself. I believe the technical term for your type of response is a DODGE. You didn't answer any of my questions.

What does

Originally Posted by smc

The vexing social problems are poverty and immigration. The overwhelming majority of undocumented workers who come here from Mexico do so because they are dirt poor and there is so little hope and opportunity in their home country to lift themselves out of poverty. That is why there is so huge a business in individual sending of money from the United States to Mexico: undocumented workers here are supporting their families back home. In many other cases, entire families come here -- for the same reason. This primary motivating factor for crossing our southern border is undeniable

have to do with closing down Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to Americans?

Did the actions and policies of the Mexican government have nothing to do with the country's poverty??

And did anyone in this thread accuse Obama of not being born in the US?

I only ask because if you wouldn't want someone to

Originally Posted by smc

bring in early referents as if they were the most recent subjects of the rhetoric.

you probably wouldn't want someone to refer to something that wasn't even said.

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy, you are absolutely right, they are illegal aliens. You are wrong about the taxes.

Thanks, but Rachel wrote that Although I doubt income tax and SS is deducted from their pay checks. They don't have SS numbers and companies usually don't report their illegal workers.

Originally Posted by randolph

My agricultural company could not have survived without these hardworking guys from Mexico and Guatemala willing to work nine hours a day six days a week for a modest wage.
We cannot stop them from coming up here. What needs to be done is once they have a job, give them a work permit that allows them to legally travel back and forth to Mexico so they can leave their families there where it is much cheaper for them to live.

I think the work permit is a slippery slop to amnesty or will lead to problems with 3rd class citizens.

Mexicans are hard workers. But if there weren't illegals here the hard work would still get done. It would have to or else we wouldn't be too good to do the work. Our society would fall apart. We would be poor, and then willing to do the hard work. I don't want this to come back and bite us in the butt like slavery did. People used the same arguments about slaves. "They do the work no one else will do".

Well it's time we all do the hard work.

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by smc

I am more afraid of living in an America where people who think as you write above -- reactionary, vitriolic, nativist, short-sighted, etc. -- are in charge than of living in a country overrun by the people you so easily belittle.

By the way, I use "undocumented worker" not as a PC nicety, but because I refuse to take the simplistic road of simply criminalizing behavior that has, at its root, the human yearning for a better life free of poverty and degradation.

It's so easy for we Americans to sit on our high horses, but I wonder what any of us would do were the tables turned. How about you, Rachel. I understand you have a gun. If your family was dirt poor, had no prospects for getting food, lived in rural Mexico and was subjected to all difficulties brought upon by gangs, murderers, and so on, might you pack them up and try to move somewhere safer and with more opportunity? Might you pick up that gun and use it (even "illegally)?

Simplistic? I'm being real. Do we call car thieves autoless drivers? Let em do it the legal way as my grandparents did. And just WTF do my guns have to do with this conversation?

[smc]

Originally Posted by Rachel

Simplistic? I'm being real. Do we call car thieves autoless drivers? Let em do it the legal way as my grandparents did. And just WTF do my guns have to do with this conversation?

Rachel, I believe you are better than the answer "do we call car thieves autoless drivers?" I explained what I meant by "simplistic" in the full sentence, only a piece of which you respond to. It's about "criminalizing behavior" and the root of that behavior. At least reply to what I actually wrote. It's so easy to pull out a few words and pretend the rest are not there.

As for the "gun," I wrote quite specifically, using it as an analogy to the question of doing something "illegally." I refuse to believe you didn't see it, so I must assume that your question about what your "guns have to do with this conversation" is a rhetorical device. Unfortunately, it's the same as before: pull out a few words and pretend the rest are not there.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

LOL keep your red herrings to yourself. I believe the technical term for your type of response is a DODGE. You didn't answer any of my questions.

What does

have to do with closing down Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to Americans?

Did the actions and policies of the Mexican government have nothing to do with the country's poverty??

And did anyone in this thread accuse Obama of not being born in the US?

I only ask because if you wouldn't want someone to you probably wouldn't want someone to refer to something that wasn't even said.

How convenient for you to have come up with the idea of the dodge. It allows you to avoid the issues of your fallacious way or arguing that I've raised. So, anyone who reads from the beginning might not realize that you are, in fact, the dodger.

Be that as it may, your questions:

Buenos Aires -- what does this have to do with anything? You raised it in a post recently with no connection to anything. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a rhetorical device, inexplicable as it may be. Instead, should I point out that you are now guilty of bringing things up no one ever spoke of before in the thread (something you seem to feel is universally invalid)?

Mexican government -- if you had read my previous posts fully (complete reading does not seem to be part of your M.O. in this discussion), you would see that I already ascribed to the Mexican government blame. I also pinned the blame on the U.S. government for propping up a bad Mexican government.

Obama's birth -- here's where you illustrate that you don't fully read. I wrote: "I mean, really, it is almost as ridiculous as the view that Obama wasn't born in the United States." In other words, I used it to illustrate another point. I didn't ascribe the view to you. I didn't put words in your mouth. I didn't say anyone had said this. I used it to illustrate my point.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Rachel

Simplistic? I'm being real. Do we call car thieves autoless drivers? Let em do it the legal way as my grandparents did. And just WTF do my guns have to do with this conversation?

Hey, don't be hard on autoless drivers. They have vexing social problems to deal with.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

How convenient for you to have come up with the idea of the dodge. It allows you to avoid the issues of your fallacious way or arguing that I've raised. So, anyone who reads from the beginning might not realize that you are, in fact, the dodger.

I'm dodging because I didn't respond to your dodge? Just stay on the subject.

Originally Posted by smc

Buenos Aires -- what does this have to do with anything? You raised it in a post recently with no connection to anything. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a rhetorical device, inexplicable as it may be.

"if you had read my previous posts fully (complete reading does not seem to be part of your M.O. in this discussion)" I brought it up because it was news that broke that day relevant to illegal immigrants in Arizona. I posted a link to the news story as well.

Originally Posted by smc

Mexican government -- if you had read my previous posts fully (complete reading does not seem to be part of your M.O. in this discussion), you would see that I already ascribed to the Mexican government blame. I also pinned the blame on the U.S. government for propping up a bad Mexican government.

I'm glad to see you give the Mexican govt the blame. I still don't see it above though.

And back to the other subject that you dodged with the fallacy of appeal to ridicule:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

That's why I'm bringing these things up here in this thread. Because looking at only his actions without hearing any of his reasoning, without giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think the only logical conclusion of his actions alone, is that he's trying to change the demographics of America. But I'm not hearing his reasons. And it's getting harder and harder to give him the benefit of the doubt when he consistently comes down on the side of letting illegals live and work here. So enlighten me. Have you or anyone else heard his reasons?

[randolph]

Tracy- "Thanks, but Rachel wrote that Although I doubt income tax and SS is deducted from their pay checks. They don't have SS numbers and companies usually don't report their illegal workers."

Sorry Tracy, you are wrong there. Most "illegals" have documents (possibly fake) that appear genuine. The employer has no available means to determine authenticity and is not required to investigate. The forms that are filled out when they are hired require several forms of ID. SS and IRS are deducted from their paychecks. I know because I signed the checks. The one case where SS Admin. questioned one of our employees SS, it turns out he was legal and some one had stolen his SS.
Since the funds, SS and IRS, deducted from "illegal" workers checks, end up not being "claimed" by the worker, the money is gravy for the government. Neither the SS Admin or the IRS ever checked the legality of our workers.

[ila]

This thread has deteriorated into a ?he said, she said, they said, we said? discussion. It?s time to get it back on track.

Since the humans first appeared on Earth there has been a constant movement from one place to another. That is how the complete globe has become populated. And no, Randolph, there is no proof that Cro-Magnon man pushed the Neanderthals out of Europe or were even responsible for the extinction of Neanderthals.

The US is not the only country that has experienced a lot of immigration recently. All of the Americas were settled by migration, albeit a process that started during the last ice age. As well Oceania, Europe, and parts of Africa have experienced a lot of immigration.

Documentation of immigrants has only been required for within the last couple of hundred years. If one cares to go back in history the first European immigrants to the Americas did not require any kind of documentation. Nor were there any laws restricting immigration, no prerequisites, and no quotas. Illegal immigration is merely a bureaucratic invention designed to control what humans have been doing for a couple of hundred thousand years.

Now, take the discussion from this point and keep it civil.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Sorry Tracy, you are wrong there. Most "illegals" have documents (possibly fake) that appear genuine.

Well that's lovely

[Amy]

I can't help but laugh at this ridiculous american border fence.


The Romans tried something similar in my country.
20 feet high.
10 feet wide.
75 miles long.
Built of stone.
Along the tops of cliffs for half its length.
Garrisoned by 9000 soldiers.


If THAT didn't manage to stop illegal immigrants, how's a cheap fence which can be circumvented in under 30 seconds supposed to?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

This thread has deteriorated into a ?he said, she said, they said, we said? discussion. It?s time to get it back on track.

Since the humans first appeared on Earth there has been a constant movement from one place to another. That is how the complete globe has become populated. And no, Randolph, there is no proof that Cro-Magnon man pushed the Neanderthals out of Europe or were even responsible for the extinction of Neanderthals.

The US is not the only country that has experienced a lot of immigration recently. All of the Americas were settled by migration, albeit a process that started during the last ice age. As well Oceania, Europe, and parts of Africa have experienced a lot of immigration.

Documentation of immigrants has only been required for within the last couple of hundred years. If one cares to go back in history the first European immigrants to the Americas did not require any kind of documentation. Nor were there any laws restricting immigration, no prerequisites, and no quotas. Illegal immigration is merely a bureaucratic invention designed to control what humans have been doing for a couple of hundred thousand years.

Now, take the discussion from this point and keep it civil.

This is from wikipedia.
Rapid extinction

Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict comparable to the genocides suffered by indigenous peoples in recent human history.[9] Another possibility raised by Diamond and others, paralleling colonialist history, would be a greater susceptibility on the part of the Neanderthals to pathogens introduced by Cro-Magnon man. Diamond argues that asymmetry in susceptibility to pathogens is a consequence of the difference in lifestyle.[citation needed]
[edit] Competitive replacement

Even a slight competitive advantage on the part of modern humans could account for Neanderthals' replacement by anatomically modern humans on a timescale of 10,000-20,000 years.[4]
The theory that early humans violently replaced Neanderthals was first proposed by French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule (the first person to publish an analysis of a Neanderthal) in 1912.[10]
Another supporter of competitive replacement is Jared Diamond who points out in his book The Third Chimpanzee that the genocidal replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans is similar to modern human patterns of behavior that occur whenever people with advanced technology invade the territory of less advanced people.[11]


You ignored the points I tried to make from my own experience and nit picked the Neanderthal issue. So much for staying on track.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy, you are absolutely right, they are illegal aliens. You are wrong about the taxes. They come up here to work to support their families. They obtain fake documentation and are hired as if they were legal. Income taxes and SS taxes are deducted from their paychecks. They do jobs that spoiled Americans are unwilling to do. They clean motel rooms, wash dishes, pick fruit, hoe weeds and raise our crops.

I'm unemployed right now and I would GLADLY perform any of these duties without complaint, to support MY LEGAL family. My only stipulation would be to make the federal/state minimum wage...Which in MY experience, most immigrant workers demanded more than that (typically $10/hour). And I'd pay the taxes and SS too, without attributing it to a false set of papers. Why should some damn illegal get work that I'm willling to do first?

These are essential services and alien workers do it cheaply and without complaining. The main problem is they bring their families up here. The wife and children put a strain on public services, health care, schools and housing.

And my spouse and family pay our taxes, we have health insurance, etc., etc. We are not the drain on the system that the illegal family is. So once again, why should an illegal get my job?

My agricultural company could not have survived without these hardworking guys from Mexico and Guatemala willing to work nine hours a day six days a week for a modest wage.

Personally, I'd LOVE to make it utterly impossible for you to survive with them. If it were my call, we'd regularly screen companies for illegal workers (and we'd make it easier for employers to screen their workforce). If you were caught with just one illegal on your payroll, you'd be fined $10,000 and a subsequent fine of $10,000 for every other illegal caught on your audited payroll. Too many strikes, and just like a person, your corporate personhood would be sent away for life for breaking the law too many times. In short, your corporation would be dissolved and liquidated and sold to the highest bidder.

We cannot stop them from coming up here. What needs to be done is once they have a job, give them a work permit that allows them to legally travel back and forth to Mexico so they can leave their families there where it is much cheaper for them to live.

Wrong, we should make work IMPOSSIBLE for them to obtain, so they crawl their way back across the border and make due with what opportunities they can get from where they came from.

Unfortunately, our political system is so fucked up, the situation will never be resolved.

THIS, I completely agree with. I don't look for your solutions, mine, or ANYONE who has sensible solutions to ever have them actually implemented.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by GRH

I'm unemployed right now and I would GLADLY perform any of these duties without complaint, to support MY LEGAL family. My only stipulation would be to make the federal/state minimum wage...Which in MY experience, most immigrant workers demanded more than that (typically $10/hour). And I'd pay the taxes and SS too, without attributing it to a false set of papers. Why should some damn illegal get work that I'm willling to do first?




And my spouse and family pay our taxes, we have health insurance, etc., etc. We are not the drain on the system that the illegal family is. So once again, why should an illegal get my job?



Personally, I'd LOVE to make it utterly impossible for you to survive with them. If it were my call, we'd regularly screen companies for illegal workers (and we'd make it easier for employers to screen their workforce). If you were caught with just one illegal on your payroll, you'd be fined $10,000 and a subsequent fine of $10,000 for every other illegal caught on your audited payroll. Too many strikes, and just like a person, your corporate personhood would be sent away for life for breaking the law too many times. In short, your corporation would be dissolved and liquidated and sold to the highest bidder.



Wrong, we should make work IMPOSSIBLE for them to obtain, so they crawl their way back across the border and make due with what opportunities they can get from where they came from.



THIS, I completely agree with. I don't look for your solutions, mine, or ANYONE who has sensible solutions to ever have them actually implemented.

Believe me, I would have been delighted to hire someone like you. I tried the employment department, job retrainmnent agencies and even private employment agencies. Some would come to work for a week or two and then leave. I am very sorry for your predicament, so many are in it.

In California, unemployment could be mostly eliminated by a simple law, do what Oregon does, require a gas station attendant to fill the tank. This could tide many over until they found a better job.

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by Amy

I can't help but laugh at this ridiculous american border fence.


The Romans tried something similar in my country.
20 feet high.
10 feet wide.
75 miles long.
Built of stone.
Along the tops of cliffs for half its length.
Garrisoned by 9000 soldiers.


If THAT didn't manage to stop illegal immigrants, how's a cheap fence which can be circumvented in under 30 seconds supposed to?

I called for the idea of the .50 cal fence one every half mile will cover the border. We are supposed to be at war arent we?

[Rachel]

SMC you should know me well enough by now that I dont go into lengthy diatribes. I like to keep my answers short and sweet and to the point. Yes I read every post, I can read very quickly. However I dont spend much time at the computer to compose a rambling manifesto. So I'll answer the point that I see most fit. Hey at least I'm participating no? Anyway back to the subject... Criminalizing behavior? Hmmm they want to immigrate but wont/cant do it the right way. Enter a country ILLEGALY=criminal behavior. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them that they were born in Mexico? And no, I'm not going to use my guns to commit criminal acts. I am not a criminal like every one of the illegal aliens is. Still dont see your point on that. I wouldnt call it a dodge I was going to say changing the subject. But once again, I'm not on here that often to make those quick replies.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Personally, I'd LOVE to make it utterly impossible for you to survive with them. If it were my call, we'd regularly screen companies for illegal workers (and we'd make it easier for employers to screen their workforce). If you were caught with just one illegal on your payroll, you'd be fined $10,000 and a subsequent fine of $10,000 for every other illegal caught on your audited payroll. Too many strikes, and just like a person, your corporate personhood would be sent away for life for breaking the law too many times. In short, your corporation would be dissolved and liquidated and sold to the highest bidder.

Originally Posted by Rachel

I called for the idea of the .50 cal fence one every half mile will cover the border. We are supposed to be at war arent we?

When I become president I have positions for both of you. (Double entendre intentional)

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

When I become president I have positions for both of you. (Double entendre intentional)

You probably need to be governor of Arizona first. Lots of support there.
Mexican babies born here? Just through them across the border. Who cares, they would make good coyote bait.

[Rachel]

20 years ago there was a fish market/restaurant in town. the best ever. Was a family owned place that was there when my dad was a kid. All of a sudden he's closed up. Boarded up. He had 10 illegals working for him and they shut him down. My how times have changed. Now the problem is ignored and towns are bending over backward to appease this group of criminals. Wasting taxpayers money building shelters in muster zones. Hmm they built it 4 miles away in the industrial park where no one goes at a cost of 144 thousand. What a waste of the citizens money.

[TracyCoxx]

Obama's 2012 campaign strategy is starting to take shape and being the dirty politician he is I think we all expected this: If you can't count on your own citizens to re-elect you, just make new citizens!

Originally Posted by NumbersUSA

Senators Challenge Pres. Obama on Rumors of Executive Order Amnesty

Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can't secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate.

The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative.

Click here for text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

[randolph]

Amnesty would be the last straw. My support for Obama has been eroding rapidly. He is sold out to corporate interests just like all the other politicians. The amnesty back in the early 1990s failed and this time would be no different. Unfortunately, the Repubs. provide no sane alternative.

If I could learn French I would move to Provence and take up painting.

[Sadist]

Didn't Ronald Reagan sign the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 into law???? In case you were unaware, the Act contained the following:

* required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously
* made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization)
* granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982

Looks like Reagan was trying to create new citizens to vote for the Republicans.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Sadist

Didn't Ronald Reagan sign the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 into law???? In case you were unaware, the Act contained the following:

* required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously
* made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization)
* granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982

Looks like Reagan was trying to create new citizens to vote for the Republicans.

Thank you for the best kind of retort to these farcical contentions that any of the actions being taken or considered by the government at present regarding immigration are designed to change the demographics of the country deliberately for electoral gain.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Sadist

Didn't Ronald Reagan sign the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 into law???? In case you were unaware, the Act contained the following:

* required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously
* made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization)
* granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982

Looks like Reagan was trying to create new citizens to vote for the Republicans.

I think republicans and independents all agree Reagan's amnesty was a complete failure.