Sad day for America and humanity

[RB TexLa]

Immigration bill fails to get 60 votes to continue. There is good and evil and true evil won today.

[shadowknows69]

1. Not to mention we're the laughing stock of the free world now

because our leaders just openly declared themselves tyrants. I think I'm going back to bed.

[Dave From Canada]

261. Wow, hubris mixed with hyperbole. Contrary to popular American belief, not everyone

in the "free world" sits around and monitors what goes on in the American senate or house on a daily basis, waiting with bated breath on the results. If you polled Canadians to ask about your immigration bill, the most popular answer would be what immigration bill?

[bryant69]

2. Well there seem to be plenty around here who also oppose the immigration bill

Presumably they will be happy. I find myself on the fence myself, but i'm not an expert on immigration issues.

Damn - Rush is going to be happy. That sucks.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Nimrod2005]

3. Amen!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. It succeeded in leaving 12 million people out in the cold.

I wasn't a big fan of the bill because of the punitive aspects, but it was probably the best that could be hoped for by the immigrants at this time.

[greyghost]

17. Call me old school...

but I care more about American citizens then ILLEGAL ALIENS.

[TwilightGardener]

21. I'm not "for" illegals either. I have little to no sympathy for them.

But if there was ANYTHING in this bill that would help solve ANY of the problems we face with them, considering they're not going anywhere and will only become more numerous as time goes on--I wish it would have passed. Right now, people are running across the border or swimming the Rio Grande, and it's going to be same old, same old--which is why we're in the mess we're in.

[Matsubara]

67. I have a great deal of sympathy for illegal immigrants, but that doesn't mean they should be in the

US.


The fact is, the easy availability of illegal labor allows employers to keep wages super low, so low that of course Americans won't work those jobs - nobody can live on the pittance they pay - often far below the minimum wage.

The reason I want illegals sent home and employers who employ them punished is to combat the depressive effect they have on ALL low-end wages.

There are a lot of obscenely rich people in Mexico. It's time they started taking care of their own.

[RB TexLa]

25. So you choose which human beings you care about based on where they were born

[TwilightGardener]

57. Bullshit. I use Mexico as an example because it's the obvious example.

I am simply not that sympathetic with those who break the law and sneak in to this country. But I am FOR giving them a fair path to citizenship--let them become a part of our nation's fabric, and contribute, and be good Americans--I don't care WHERE they're from.

[RB TexLa]

63. I think you put this in the wrong spot. but ok

[LaurenG]

79. Lol

How did you get into that - huh. :shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

94. Ooops! My eyes failed me--sorry!

[pampango]

99. It is the only birth characteristic that most DU'ers find an acceptable

basis for unequal treatment. All others: race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender are birth characteristics which DU'ers believe should never be used as a basis to treat someone in an unequal manner. If you are born at the wrong map coordinates, however, many here will tell you that you are SOL.

[mediawatch]

163. not so much based on where they were born

but more so on what country the illegally sneek into.

[Bridget Burke]

110. Yes, nativism & xenophobia have a long history in the USA.

http://museum.cl.msu.edu/Exhibitions/Virtual/ImmigrationandCaricature/7572-133.html

[madokie]

165. same with me

if the illegals came here and demanded the same pay as we used to get for doing the job maybe I'd give a damn but they don't and so neither do I care if they are left out in the cold as one poster said. the heck with all this illegal shit anyway. wanta come to america come over here without sneaking in and they might get a better response from me. After all the illegals are taking jobs from my friends and family whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

[Telly Savalas]

232. Do you hold a grudge because an undocumented worker damaged your caps lock key ?

[bdamomma]

5. not to sound ignorant but this bill failed could someone just explain

the outcome to me, and what will happen to these illegal immigrants?

[havocmom]

6. They won't fare as well as the illegal EMPLOYERS who lure them

Toss the employers in jail for violating laws and I might believe they are serious about ANY sort of justice in this issue.

[greyghost]

10. Exactly

I'm extremely happy that this failed, and am only sorry that we won't be able to see how soundly it would have been defeated in the House.

[pampango]

82. I am not happy, but I agree that the Repubs and the Blue Dog

Democrats would have chewed this bill up and spit it out in the House.

Looks like those who opposed the bill can send a thank you card to the Senate Repubs who voted 36-12 against cloture, while the Democrats voted 32-15 for cloture. If it wasn't for the steadfast repub opposition to the bill, it would still be alive.

[TahitiNut]

14. Exactly.

And this alleged 'legislation' was nothing but amnesty for those traffickers in human labor and a HUGE increase in 'legalized' serfdom. It assured absolutely NO improvement in human conditions - either alien or domestic. None.

[havocmom]

24. "It assured absolutely NO improvement in human conditions - either alien or domestic. None."

"..nothing but amnesty for those traffickers in human labor and a HUGE increase in 'legalized' serfdom"

My friend, you got it down to its essence. It was just more smoke, mirrors, and subterfuge. The only winners would be ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS. An empty gesture at best for humanity.

Sick and friggin tired of all the shit for show that has no real substance. Glad to see this one go down. And proud of my junior senator.

[Zavulon]

126. I'm glad, too

I love how anyone against this bill is accused of being indifferent towards people based on birthplace. What a pantload that is. I have yet to see people here rail against LEGAL immigrants. I freely admit that I choose whom to care about based on immigration status, and I see no reason to reward 12-20 million people who have no regard for our laws.

This bill was little more than a guarantee of more cheap, exploitable labor for big employers - and a sharp stick up the asses of taxpayers. The supposed penalties and enforcement measures would have been ignored just like current immigration laws are.

Thank God this monstrosity didn't pass.

[pampango]

151. There have been some, not most, posters who have opposed any immigration

as an increase in the supply of labor which has a negative effect on American jobs and wages.

The only problem I have with the "enforce existing laws" group is that they seldom, I almost said never, go on to explain what the next step is after all illegal immigrants have lost their jobs. Do we enact new immigration legislation that increases legal immigration, since we only oppose "illegal" immigrants? If that is not part of the "enforcing existing laws" approach, then one could conclude that their opposition is to immigrants in general, not just the illegal ones.

Also, what happens to the illegal immigrants (others call them "poor Hispanic families" many with American children) who are already here? Massive roundup and deportation? "Voluntary" departure (things get so bad in the US that they decide that the poverty they left behind is preferable.) Just make sure nobody has a camera to take a picture of the poor Hispanics flowing back across the border.

[Zavulon]

167. Well, one thing is for sure...

...if the government refuses to enforce existing laws, they have no business expecting us to buy pie-in-the-sky promises like what we heard in this new bill.

After we enforce laws and illegals lose their jobs, many will leave. When the smoke clears, we could see what requirements are for guest workers, and actually do some degree of checking up on them. People previously ordered deported or who have committed crimes (other than illegal presence) would not be eligible.

I would remove every incentive for a person to be here illegally and for someone to hire an illegal. No education, no driver's license, no possibility to rent. SEVERE penalties for anyone who hires someone here illegally. Jail time for false use of Social Security numbers or for failing to pay minimum wage / paying an illegal under the table. The whole nine yards. I would do everything possible to encourage voluntary departure and deport any illegal caught committing any other sort of crime. In short, I would like to see the lives of people here illegally to be significantly worse than what they left behind, period. We should have a say as to who comes here, and we should be able to expect our laws to be obeyed. If we actually enforced laws, we could see what changes had to be made in our immigration system and do our best to adjust accordingly.

No solution will get rid of every single one, but almost any idea is better than the status quo. sadly, that piece-of-crap bill Bush was pushing was not.

I'm not sure what you meant by your last sentence. There are millions of illegals who aren't Hispanic and I don't have any sympathy for them, either.

Thanks, though, for a thoughtful and civil reply. After putting up my post and thinking about it, I really wasn't expecting anything but flames. The bill was crap, though.

[Craftsman]

128. Exactly, this was just to help business and not either citizens or the

illegals. Bushco does not care about any of us unless we make atleast $250K a year minimum.

[greyghost]

28. Bingo! ...

Well said, extremely well said.

[merh]

32. thank you

God I love to read reasonable posts.

We have very good immigration laws on the books, if they were to enforced against the corporations and the private citizens taking advantage of illegals by giving them work for cheap wages and no benefits and working them in dangerous conditions not covered by OSHA or other laws regulating the work force, then the fines from enforceing the laws could go to the needs associated with housing and deportation of illegals and proper monitoring of the system. My grandparents began as illegals and they followed the laws, took the tests and became legal citizens. It can happen without changing the laws relative to the immigration policies of the nation. What has to change are the laws or the lack of enforcement of laws that allow corporations and the elite to hire illegals and get away with it. The slave owners.

.

[TahitiNut]

78. (blush) Thanks, y'all.

Needless to say to you, we clearly share a sense of equity and justice on this issue.

I think the key word (that at long last occurred to me) is "serfdom" ... in a corporate feudal state.

The ages-long exploitation of the vast majority by Feudal Lords who create, exacerbate, and exploit divisions for the sole purpose of their own wealth and power should be well-known. The same 'interests' who've promulgated corporate colonialism in Latin America and the world and the immense disenfranchisement of the people in those nations are exploiting the very same divisions to further create a feudal state in the U.S.

Serfs. The diminished and demeaned role of labor and the objectification of human beings. Appalling.


While it's not especially comfortable to align in opposition alongside a minority who apparently do so with racist or xenophobic motivations, it must be frequently pointed out that just as people can do the wrong thing for 'good' reasons, people can do the RIGHT thing for 'bad' reasons. To claim that anyone is then motivated for 'bad' reasons is intellectually bankrupt and hateful, imho ... far too often seen on DU regarding this issue.

[merh]

91. Before we can truly address the "immigration" crisis

We must first address the corporation crisis. I suggest we adopt the Constitutional Amendment that Madison and Jefferson had proposed:

~snip~

Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution that would "ban monopolies in commerce," making it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, banning them from giving money to politicians or trying to influence elections in any way, restricting corporations to a single business purpose, limiting the lifetime of a corporation to something roughly similar to that of productive humans (20 to 40 years back then), and requiring that the first purpose for which all corporations were created be "to serve the public good."

The amendment didn't pass because many argued it was unnecessary: Virtually all states already had such laws on the books from the founding of this nation until the Age of the Robber Barons.

Wisconsin, for example, had a law that stated: "No corporation doing business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office." The penalty for any corporate official violating that law and getting cozy with politicians on behalf of a corporation was five years in prison and a substantial fine.

~snip~

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm

And adopting the law Wisconsin had adopted seems like a good notion too.

Serfdom is the most appropriate term, as is Robber Barons for the corporations. Our founding fathers warned against their powers being used to destroy all that was established when our "free world" was formed, it's just that folks forgot the warnings or greed made them ignore them.

[havocmom]

103. I'll carry that petition and work for that amendment!

It is probably the ONLY way to salvage the Constitution and nation from the corporations who now have more rights than people have.

[TahitiNut]

173. I'm 100% on-board for such an amendment.

Just the improvements we'd see from prohibiting PROPERTY (a corporation) from owning PROPERTY (another corporation) would be an eye-opener for millions.

[merh]

191. Or how about limiting the lifetime of the corporation and mandating their purpose

limiting the lifetime of a corporation to something roughly similar to that of productive humans (20 to 40 years back then), and requiring that the first purpose for which all corporations were created be "to serve the public good.

We have SCOTUS that is wrecking havoc, it will take a constitutional amendment to change the course of things.

[TahitiNut]

200. As I said, I'm on board ... for all or any part.

I also support a "corporate death penalty" (including surrender of all assets) and a national sales tax on the trade or exchange of corporate stock (property!). People pay sales tax when they buy an automobile but not an automobile COMPANY! People pay sales tax when they buy clothing but not a clothing COMPANY! Insane!

[merh]

211. Oh, I like that, the "corporate death penalty"

And 100% behind the corporations paying taxes, all taxes.

[Saturday]

7. Nothing will happen. Life will go on as usual for everyone. n/t

[Imagevision]

8. It was 20 million people 2 years ago, how did it get to 12 million??

[azndndude]

9. Native Americans react to Illegal Immigration

NATIVE AMERICANS SEEK CHANGES TO IMMIGRATION BILL — TO DEPORT MAYFLOWER DESCENDANTS
By Don Davis
Flexing their new-found political muscle, Native Americans — the only “true” Americans — have now weighed in on the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, lobbying Congress to provide for the immediate deportation of all Mayflower descendants.

Speaking for the National Council of American Indians, Chief “Running Tab at Foxwoods” asserted that the Mayflower settlers “not only entered this country illegally, without visas or work permits, but behaved very badly –spreading disease, raping our women, despoiling the land, and worst of all, stealing our very identity for their sports teams.”

While most tribes oppose any type of amnesty, some have supported a limited trail to citizenship, requiring the Mayflower descendants to pay a fine consisting of their scalps, and the return of the Great Plains.
Other tribes have proposed a “touchback provision,” requiring the illegal squatters to return to the 17th Century, for four centuries, before applying to live here legally in the present.
Some Native Americans would also grant favorable treatment to those who have high-tech skills, such as converting corn to ethanol.
This proposal has predictably drawn a huge outcry from the WASPS, who claim that they’re merely doing the jobs that Native Americans refuse to do, such as running investment banks and hedge funds.
In addition, although genealogy records reflect that his ancestors arrived not on Plymouth Rock but on Ellis Island, the Indian tribes have also insisted on the unconditional and immediate deportation of Jack Abramoff.

[TahitiNut]

12. Indeed. After all ...

... equating the behavior of an allegedly self-governing democratic republic to that of a monarchy is sooo meaningful. :eyes:

Sophomoric nonsense.

[merh]

113. I do love that

please provide the link to the original source.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[greyghost]

11. Actually...

this is a GREAT day for America.

[quinnox]

13. Good

This bill sucked. Not a sad day at all, American is better off.

[greyghost]

15. AMEN n/t

[TwilightGardener]

16. For all those who are happy today: what did you win? I'm curious.

Did you like the way things were? You want that to continue indefinitely? This was a chance to remedy at least SOME of the issues. Why so happy that it failed? What's going to change now?

[greyghost]

20. For one...

TPTB could now try to enforce the laws already on the books!

Thankfully the majority of the American people are waking up to the fact that this is a MAJOR problem, that needs to dealt with in an APPROPRIATE manner.

I'd start by prosecuting ANY company that hires illegal aliens.

[TwilightGardener]

31. Yeah, right--the old RW talk-radio "enforce the laws" argument--

if it were that simple, if the laws were that effective, why is there such a problem? I don't believe it's only a matter of corporate cheap labor and lack of will to enforce. Maybe those laws (from 1986) needed to be updated for the realities that we face today. Let's face it, those old laws are NOT going to be enforced now, if they haven't been for 20 years--that's reality. Maybe some NEW laws might have a better effect (such as an ID card specifically for employer verification--one that can't be easily copied or stolen, like a driver's license). Sorry, even an incremental improvement on SOME aspect of illegal immigration sure beats doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve the situation. WTF is the harm in TRYING? One thing's for sure: I'd better not hear anybody bitch about illegals on DU who were so happy today about the death of this bill.

[greyghost]

85. There seems to be a tendacy in...

Washington to enact new laws for a problem when in reality the laws on the books more then suffice.

For me this bill simply represented a free ride for the companies that profit from illegal labor.

[TwilightGardener]

100. How was it a free ride? If we can start documenting/tracking illegals in a

more effective way (thus reducing employer hiring), while giving a pathway for those who reveal themselves to remain here to earn citizenship AND allowing them to earn a living wage and contribute to society--how is that a loser for us?

[northzax]

107. a driver's license

isn't proof of anything except identity, age and the ability to pass a test to drive a car. It is not employment eligibility.

I, personally, would be in favor of having national database of non-citizens with residency and or work visas. an employer should be able to go to a website, enter their employer ID number and the employee's employee ID number (SSN, usually) and view a copy of their green card of visa, with picture and other indentifying information. if you are in that system, you are clear (and the employer has no liability for hiring you, since they have performed due diligence, and there would be a record of the search) that will solve that problem, you can fake a green card (I can buy one for you for $250 on my street corner, we don't have drug dealers, we have ID dealers)

anyone being hired for any job needs to prove legal ability to work in the US (the I-9 form) I am a white male descendant of Mayflower and Jamestown folks and I still show my passport to get a job. you need a passport (hard to fake) or a birth certificate/SS card and a photo ID, so, starting now, let's have a database of SS numbers easily accesible to potential employers. you go to the website, enter your EIN and the employee's SSN and gives you their name, as registered, and stores the report. If two people are using the numbers, or if it is a fake number, it tells you, and you don't hire them. if it clears them, you are not liable for hiring someone, since you have done due diligence. If you hire someone who is not legally allowed to work, and you don't run these checks, you are screwed. we can then focus employment on people who don't run the checks, and the system will give us good leads on where problems really are.

this wouldn't really change things like day labourers, since you can't realistically expect individuals to do this for a one time employment, but you could easily run one for your nanny or your housecleaner, if you so chose to (and if you didn't, you'd be liable, if you got caught)

[TwilightGardener]

109. Well, if it's being used for photo ID for a job--isn't that for eligibility?

Either way, you make a lot of sense. But that would be a new law, and many Americans don't want new laws--they want more of what hasn't been working.

[northzax]

114. when supplemented with proof of citizenship, yes

a license alone isn't good enough, you need a birth certificate or social security card as well.

[cherokeeprogressive]

208. No Problem. I can get all three of those things for you in an day or two. n/t

[northzax]

212. which is why there needs to be a database

where you can check a SSN against things like DOB and gender. I get a job, say, and give them my driver's license and SS card, # 456.43.5674. The employer logs onto the web, or calls an 800 number, and for, say, a $10 fee (tax deductible) enters in my SSN and get a report that it was issued to cherokeeprogressive, DOB 1.1.1980. it also notes who made the request and when.

the employer now knows, immediately, that the number I gave him is bogus.

it takes the responsibility of verifying documentation away from the employer, who might now know a fake birth certificate when he sees one. if you were a seller of fake identification (which I am sure you are not, of course :)) this makes your job harder, as well, because you can't give me a fake number, you need to give me a number that matches an actual name in the system, and one that is roughly the right age, AND one that is not currently in use, because if you sell the same ID and number over and over, the system will notice that there is continual fraud on the name of cherokeeprogressive in Minneapolis, and raise a red flag.

Could you work two jobs and be verified for both? sure, but it would notice if you were applying for jobs simultaneously in Miami and Seattle. of course, the system would be voluntary for companies, but running a check would give them protection from liability for hiring undocumented workers, if the system passed the employee. Every quarter, companies participating would report the SSN of their employees to the database (piece of cake online, not a burden, once you have the file set up, you wouldn't even need to submit names, just the numbers. if, say, three companies submit the same number, a red flag goes up. it's amazing we expect every local employer to be an ID inspector.

[cherokeeprogressive]

221. I'm on your side, but playing devil's advocate.

You'd keep this system secure how?

[northzax]

222. well, that is a problem

but I think it can be addressed with a couple of changes to how things are done.

First off, you do run the risk that SSNs, DOBs and names would be leaked accidentally. But then, all that data is available out there pretty easily, anyway, to someone who really wants to find it, so the key is to make that information useless to someone for financial purposes, which is increasingly being done anyway. Maybe you don't use birthdates, just names and SSNs, and require birthdates for access to things like credit. it would make the information slightly less valuable for immigration purposes, but since SSNs are unique anyway, those and names should be acceptable for identification purposes. (this also removes the need for a national ID card, and the financial barrier to getting a passport for employment). If we make SSNs what they were originally supposed to be, simply for Social Security purposes, work verification is part of that. if the system holds just names and SSNs, and where someone worked, that information shouldn't be enough to justify stealing, en masse, if you need additional identification information. Surely the Social Security Administration already has this informaiton in a database (I know I get my form from them every year with my accrued benefits, right?) so it's already on a computer somewhere. Make the information that could be stolen be basically worthless. (that's the best line of defense, certainly)

Second off, security for things like online banking certainly seem to work, so there must be methods (I am hardly a computer genius, so it's all beyond me, but Bank of America seems to pull it off, so does my tiny credit union) people pay taxes online, so that information must be sotred somewhere, and that's certainly worth stealing, if the freaking IRS can keep it around, something less valuable like this database should be protectable.

there is a major problem, potentially, how do you appeal? if you are not in the system, for whatever reason, or someone steals your information from somewhere else and claims to be you, how do you prove you are you? obviously more thought is needed on the particulars.

by the way, you shold be able to view someone's green card online if you have the card in front of you, to verify the picture at least and the other information. that should be easy to do. put a PIN code on every green card, like the three digit code on your credit card, to verify you have the actual card, and you should be able to access a website and view the official copy of the card. that alone would help solve fraud.

I am just thinking of ways to get untrained people out of the business of checking IDs for veracity, right now if you fill out an I-9 for an employee, you are basically protected, how am I supposed to know what a birth certificate from Macon County, Georgia, for instance, looks like? there's no standard form, and you can whip one up pretty easily on a decent press.

any suggestions?

[cherokeeprogressive]

224. I have no suggestions. I do however have plenty of frustrations.

We are THE only industrialized country that doesn't have strict border control. Name ONE other country whose border you could sneak across in the middle of the night and be forgiven for it in the morning?

Something's wrong here.

If your car was stolen, and found five, six, ten, 20 years later, do you think the law should say "Well, you've gotten away with for awhile, so we'll just let you go unpunished, and you can KEEP THE CAR?

Please.

[BlooInBloo]

18. (shrug) I don't think the issue is a big deal anyway.

[TwilightGardener]

19. We have 12-20 million people in this country who are here illegally--

we don't know who they are, where they are, what they're doing, what diseases they carry, how many children they're having, how much welfare/medical/social benefits they're sucking up without paying taxes--this is not a big deal?

[RB TexLa]

22. how many children they have?

What could that have to do with anything?

[greyghost]

26. You gotta be kidding!

We're paying for their schooling and medical care when our own citizens children can't get medical care!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wicket]

33. rofl

:rofl:

[RB TexLa]

37. Ever notice how you can read things even if some of the letters are scrambled

can we say "sortmfrnot talikng pionts"

[greyghost]

40. Try to debate the issue.

[BlooInBloo]

43. Awwww.... don't cwy!!!

[havocmom]

76. Interesting debate method

What is the subject again?

[havocmom]

44. Casting asparagus on newer members with low post counts?

Hmm, I have read many posts by that member of DU and find them quite consistent with DU policies. If you have evidence that this member does not post in good faith within the established boundaries, I would love to see/read it.

Luke warm suggestions of someone's intent based on time and count? My my, how very tolerant. How democratic. How lame.

[BlooInBloo]

46. mmm.... asparagus.

[TahitiNut]

50. Agreed.

Thinly-veiled snark.

:puke:

[TahitiNut]

45. Disgusting.

Civility

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

<snip>

[havocmom]

47. Johnny on the Spot

My hero! :loveya:

[greyghost]

51. Needless to say, mine as well.

[BlooInBloo]

48. Ah - thanks! Will keep that in mind in the future!

[havocmom]

59. Good. We will look forward to reasoned debate in the future

Instead of random hit and run snide personal remarks. That will be much more constructive. Thank you.

[BlooInBloo]

61. There was no hit & run.

[havocmom]

64. LOL

Yeah, all the one liner cliches are reasoned, constructive debate.

:rofl:

You here all week? Cuz we can sure use the giggles.

[BlooInBloo]

65. (shrug) I always thought "hit n run" meant "post something inflammatory, and then post nothing more"

[havocmom]

69. Also points to those who refuse the real debate and stick to pointless OT attacks

against someone who doesn't march in lock step with them on the issue.

Do you recall what the original issue is?

[BlooInBloo]

72. Ah - an alternate usage. Thanks!

[YvonneCa]

54. Many of the children...

...are U.S. citizens. What do we do with these small, defenseless citizens...ride roughshod over THEIR rights? And ALL children should have medical care...that's why we need to fix the health care system.

[havocmom]

73. Yes, all children should be taken care of. But without numbers, how do we budget

and tax the corporate entities who profit more by encouraging desperate workers to break the law to enter the nation?

It's about accountability, not hurting the most defenseless.

[YvonneCa]

207. That's why comprehensive...

...reform would have helped.

[Megahurtz]

202. Being born here

just because mom and pop hopped the border illegally does not automatically make these kids legal citizens. That's why they come here to pop out kids, they think it will automatically make them legal, and it does not. In the old days, but not anymore. Better brush up on your immigration laws.

[YvonneCa]

205. Better reread..

..the Constitution. :7

[Megahurtz]

210. The Constitution Has Zilch - Nothing

to do with Immigration Law.

[YvonneCa]

220. It supercedes all...

...law.

[datasuspect]

231. "they come here to pop out kids"

yeah, those godforsaken sons of Ireland with their allegiance to Rome.

Cursed, cursed throng!!!!


i'm surprised you used "kids" instead of "cockroaches."

[pampango]

242. Dude, they are talking about Mexicans, not the Irish. Your outdated attitudes toward immigrants

is really out of place in modern America. ;)

Unfortunately, given some of the posts here, attitudes toward immigrants haven't changed a bit in 200 years. You only need to update your statement to something like:

"those cursed sons of Mexico with their allegiance to their families (not Rome, Catholicism isn't as scary as it used to be to the Know Nothings). Cursed, cursed throng!!!!"

[Bridget Burke]

259. Currently, being born in the USA makes you a citizen.

It does nothing to the immigration status of the parent.

[LSK]

62. illegal immigrants are not the reason we cant afford other things

www.costofwar.com

Get some perspective and learn some fucking math.

:grr:

[havocmom]

30. When it comes to paying for schools and other services, quite a bit, actually.

It ends up being more CORPORATE WELFARE when the society has to pay for more services so ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS can get away with paying less, dodging laws re payroll taxes and safety costs.

Those Board Room Welfare Queens luring people to cross the border are exploiting both the people who risk the crossing and the people here who dutifully obey laws and pay taxes.

By not knowing the actual numbers, we don't know just how much the Board Room Welfare Queens are costing law abiding citizens.

[greyghost]

23. Exactly...

Those who don't think this is a major problem, are either naive or not paying attention.

[datasuspect]

118. it is a problem, those damn irish are taking all the good police jobs

and tammany hall is stocked to the gills with the sons of Erin.

a pox upon the irish hordes!

[havocmom]

134. Speaking of the Irish... lots of them were offered citizenship for military service

It was exploitive then and it is exploitive now. Good to remember as various factions broach the subject.

When that particular carrot was dangled in front of many desperate Irishmen a while back, it was Mexico the US needed troops to fight. If I am not mistaken, there were more than a couple of Irishmen who, when they saw what was really going on, left the US Army and sided with the Mexican peasants. More than a couple of them stayed in Mexico, and the people they had much in common with.

The Man has always found a way to exploit desperate immigrants. Granting immunity for illegal EMPLOYERS was not something that would have slowed the process of exploitation one whit.

[pampango]

162. Were the Irish exploited here? Of course. The question for the Irish

would be were they exploited more here or back in Ireland. From the Mexican's perspective, I imagine the question is much the same. We are all "exploited" in the sense that our employer thinks we produce more than we are paid. If not, we would not be hired or would not stay on the job for long. If your complaint is with the exploitation inherent in our system, then we should work to fix it, don't tell the Mexican that his exploitation is something we just can't permit, while the white guy's exploitation is something we are going to do something about some day.

What part of the immigration bill granted immunity for illegal employers? I know there was a form of legalization for illegal employees. Do you mean retroactive immunity or future immunity for the employers?

[pampango]

153. Dude. It's Hispanics now, not the Irish. They were last century's

immigrant horde. Get with the times will you. ;)

[Bridget Burke]

172. And despite the "No Irish Need Apply" signs....

People keep hiring the drunken louts.

They breed like rabbits! They talk funny! And they send money back home!

[BlooInBloo]

27. They pay payroll taxes, which at they salaries, is about all they would be paying...

... Yup, not all that big a deal. The only way I see it being an especially big deal is for people who don't like "teh brown". Especially those who worry about all of the children they're having.

[greyghost]

34. "Sure" they do...n/t

[BlooInBloo]

38. Enjoy your visit! May I suggest the DU Top Ten list? It's a vacationer's favorite!

[greyghost]

66. Why is some ones post count so...

relevant when everyone here started at ZERO.

Again, try to DEBATE THE ISSUE.

You seem to have a problem with that concept.

[TwilightGardener]

68. I agree--you and I don't see eye to eye on this, but I support your right

to express your opinion, no matter your post count--I haven't been here that long either. Why the suspicion? I don't know.

[greyghost]

77. Exactly...

You have a right to your opinion, and we all started at ZERO.:toast:

[Megahurtz]

203. I agree with ya greyghost.

Many people :dunce: just don't get it.

[BlooInBloo]

70. There's no issue to debate.

[havocmom]

74. Den, why'd ya bring it up in the first place

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

81. Um, I didn't. I initially said there wasn't a significant problem.

[havocmom]

87. Reply 29. "Hi newly-joined, low post count, concerned person!"

Reply 38. "Enjoy your visit! May I suggest the DU Top Ten list? It's a vacationer's favorite!"

Who was that that made the veiled (and undocumented) accusations that a poster was not an acceptable member of this community?

[Bridget Burke]

97. And they pay sales tax. Which can be pretty high...

Especially in states without an income tax. Like my state, Texas.

Both my Republican senators voted NO. Yeah, they're really well known for their concern for The American Worker.

[TahitiNut]

198. So do TOURISTS. So fucking what?

Of all the 'arguments,' this "they pay sales taxes" is the most bereft of any rhyme or reason I hear. (That's saying something in a 'discussion' like this, too.) Just rabid shit-flinging without any demonstration of comprehension or balance.

:puke:

[Bridget Burke]

229. It's one answer to "they don't pay taxes"....

And my reply contained no obscenity or scatology. How does it qualify as "rabid shit-flinging"?

You will also note I avoided cutesy-poo smilies. Guess I'm just not up to your standards of intelligent discourse.

[TwilightGardener]

41. I'm FOR the bill. I'm FOR fixing at least some aspects of this situation.

I'm FOR a pathway to citizenship, as long as there's punishment for sneaking in. I'm FOR these people becoming known to society--it's for OUR benefit, in terms of security, taxes, etc.

[havocmom]

53. Making assumptions that someone who is not fond of illegal immigration

is, therefore, racist is, in its self, an act of intolerance and bigotry.

[greyghost]

58. Well said. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

60. damn reverse-racists!!! lolol! Well SCOTUS is on your side - gutting Brown v Board!

Congratulations.

[Madspirit]

171. Bloo is my Hero and he's right...

See Bloo. I make the mistake of stopping in and the first thing I run into is blatant lies and racism.
Lee

[BlooInBloo]

176. Go back on vacation! We got things under control here!

:rofl:

[Madspirit]

178. I just stopped in to k&r Good and Worthy Things

...and this place is like a fucking drug to an addict. Signing back out now. I did also k&r the funny and silly thread..."I'm Ann Coulter. Ask Me Anything".

Lee

[LSK]

35. not really, we always have had a large # of illegals here

And note the 9/11 Hijackers were here LEGALLY.

[Recursion]

36. They are paying taxes

Except for the truly hardcore under-the-table work, they're paying a lot of taxes because they get withholdings but don't file claims or get the SS benefits from them

[LSK]

42. everytime they buy something they are paying taxes

[TwilightGardener]

52. Property taxes--which is what funds the schools their children attend?

Day laborers pay taxes? And how does an employer file all of that info/payment with the IRS, and yet, the illegal doesn't file a claim--something is not matching up here.

[BlooInBloo]

75. Sigh. If the laborer is paid under the table...

... then that money is income for the employer, and the employer gets taxed on it.

EDIT: And as for property taxes: (a) I don't pay them either, because I rent my apartment. Wanna kick me out too? lol! (b) Even renters pay property taxes, as their passed on from the building owner to the tenants as part of their rents.

[TwilightGardener]

92. Do you have any sort of proof of the kind of taxes that illegals pay?

How does that work, if one is "undocumented"? Sorry, I don't believe that the tax situation works the same way for us as it does for the illegals/employers setup. I'm certainly not saying that the illegals benefit--but how does this square with the IRS in terms of filing, both for illegals AND the employers who sponsor them? Why were there amendments being considered for this bill that would make illegals pay back-taxes in order to stay here and earn citizenship, if, as you say, they pay taxes? As far as property taxes go--some states make people pay them on cars, RV's, etc--not just on homes. But the point is, if you have a large number who DON'T own homes/don't pay taxes, and yet their children are overburdening school districts, who benefits? No one. This is why these folks need to get into the system and start becoming members of society.

[northzax]

213. someone owns the home they live in, right?

or are there large numbers of tent cities on public lands I don't know about? I bet my landlord pays property taxes, and rental property income taxes on my rent, don't you think?

[Recursion]

90. Obviously they pay property taxes if they own property

Or if they rent they "pay" them since presumably the landlord's rent schedule is meant to cover, among other things, those taxes.

If they're literally being paid cash under the table (which as far as I have heard is not actually happening that often) then they aren't paying payroll taxes and FICA levies, though the employer has to be accounting for the money he's spending somewhere and that's taxed; my understanding is most of the time they're using a fake SSN, which means they're paying in to the system and getting nothing out of what they pay.

[TwilightGardener]

93. Well, if twenty of them are living in one house, instead of their own homes,

because they either can't afford or can't obtain the necessary documentation to buy property, how is that helpful? Because it's my understanding that that is the situation in a lot of border states--but, their children are crammed in to the local school districts, who aren't getting that funding. Correct me if I'm wrong--this is only what I've read.

[Recursion]

119. Then the towns need to assess those buildings at a higher rate

Christ, it's not our job to pull local jurisdictions' heads out of their asses about how to fund schools. If someone is living on a piece of property, somebody owns that property, and that somebody needs to pay taxes on it. And if your property taxes aren't meeting your obligations, then you need to raise your tax rate, or your state needs to get off its butt and distribute the state education money more equitably.

[Matsubara]

71. Illegals don't get welfare or benefits, and they pay all kinds of taxes.

Maybe not income taxes, but most of the others.

Why bash the illegals? They come here out of desperation and poverty. They're just trying to survive. It's the employers that are the criminals.

[TwilightGardener]

83. I think it's highly disputable how much taxes (and what kind) they pay--

considering they're "undocumented"--I assume it's probably not as much as the rest of us "documented" folk. Either way, they surely take in some of society's benefits (health care, education)--I'm not blaming them that they can't contribute, it's just the way it is right now. Ironically, you wanted the bill to fail, I wanted it to succeed. I thought a path to citizenship was a good idea--for everyone. If it gives these folks the ability to earn a decent wage by becoming documented and "part of the system"--I'm all for it. I hate to see these people living in the shadows in fear of deportation--that serves NOBODY. If we don't know who they are, how can we help improve their situation?

[Matsubara]

89. If the bill had succeeded they would still get shit pay, AND be eligible for benefits!

...just like thousands of workers who get shit pay from Wal-Mart.


POS Bush wanted this bill to pass. If that is the case, you can bet your bottom dollar that it was designed to benefit the super rich at the expense of poor and working people.

Or do you actually think Mr. Bush gives a damn about illegal aliens?

[TwilightGardener]

108. Yeah, Bush wanted this bill to pass. So did Obama--I think he has good intentions, don't you?

So did Boxer, Feinstein, and most of our "D" Senators. Who wanted this bill to fail? Rush, Hannity, Levin, Ingraham, Coulter, most of the R candidates, and all of Free Republic--maybe GWB was right on this, for once--for whatever reason. My Senators were split. Ben Nelson voted no, Hagel voted yes. I think both are decent guys. Good people can disagree on this issue, which is why it's hard to guess motives as to why someone supports/doesn't support it, from either side. As an aside, why is it bad for illegals to become "not illegal" and get bennies/health care? That would help them, AND our overburdened health care system in areas where they are numerous, perhaps.

On edit--maybe not Boxer--don't know how she voted.

[Matsubara]

123. Suffice it to say...

I will support an open border policy once the immigrants are guaranteed a wage of 120% of the US minimum wage.

That may sound flip, but I mean it. My *only * objection to illegals is the fact that their presence depresses wages for all lower income jobs.

[pampango]

166. What about "legals"? Does their presence depress wages for

all lower income jobs or is it just the "illegals"?

[Matsubara]

214. "Legals" are much more likely and able to complain to authorities when paid a subminimum wage.

NT

[pampango]

216. So if we made the "illegals" legal, that would be a good thing?

There would be less chance of them being exploited which would decrease the pressure on Americans' wages.

[Matsubara]

218. I don't think so. We've had 2 huge amnesties, and they did nothing to stem the tide

or to improve the wages at the bottom.

Being legalized doesn't make people aware of their rights, or make slavedriving employers any more likely to respect them. It just gets the authorities off their backs.

[datasuspect]

117. "how many diseases they carry"

yes, those damn dirty brown savages.

oy!

[TwilightGardener]

129. Wow--if you don't believe that people from poverty-stricken foreign nations

don't possibly carry infectious diseases that aren't prevalent here (such as drug-resistant TB), then you're really naive. It's not wrong to worry about an infectious disease risk from illegals, no matter WHERE they're from--and I'm a nurse, so that's an angle I consider. You're getting on your high horse and reading WAY too much into it. Read my other posts before you shoot your mouth off charging racism--I am FOR these people staying/becoming citizens, NOT trying to deport them all. I WOULD like them to be screened/treated for infectious diseases that could cause an epidemic--it is NOT racist.

[BlooInBloo]

135. It never is.

[datasuspect]

137. of course its not

it's not the brown people, it's the public health issue.

i'd love to hear the contempt with which many anti-mexican people utter the word "mexican."

[datasuspect]

136. i'm really naive then

way too much bluster and bombast concerning this (non) issue to take ANY of it seriously.


i'm more worried about the diseases that are festering in prisons and hospitals right now. if we're talking about public health issues, let's talk about public health issues.

[northzax]

215. what, like leprosy?

oh right, that one was debunked. oh, there must be something. right, drug resistant TB. of which the two cases in the US so far have been American citizens who got the disease overseas. so that's not really panning out, um cooties maybe?

[TwilightGardener]

219. Isn't it standard for immigrants and travelers to get medical exams

to enter most foreign countries? Why shouldn't we be concerned about the same thing for illegals as for LEGAL immigrants?
Oh, and about that TB: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35815

In 2005, the CDC reported that 7.8 percent of tuberculosis cases in the U.S. were resistant to isoniazid, the first line drug used to treat TB.2
The CDC also reported that 1.2 percent of tuberculosis cases in the U.S. were resistant to both isoniazid and rifampin.3 Rifampin is the drug most commonly used with isoniazid.
Overall, 124 cases of MDR-TB cases were reported in 2005, which remained constant from the previous year.4
Only 27 percent of primary MDR-TB cases were in U.S. born persons. The percentage of U.S. born persons with MDR-TB has remained stable at approximately 0.6 percent since 2000. The proportion of MDR-TB cases continued to disproportionately affect foreign-born persons in the United States. Among this group, MDR-TB cases has increased from 26 percent in 1993 to 81.5 percent of cases in 2005.5
The World Health Organization estimates that up to 50 million persons worldwide may be infected with drug resistant strains of TB. Also, 300,000 new cases of MDR-TB are diagnosed around the world each year and 79 percent of the MDR-TB cases now show resistance to three or more drugs.6

[northzax]

223. travelers? not really

immigrants to the US, yes. although from countries where there are stricter visa requirements, many times medical exams are required.

an, oh dear, you are talking about fewer than 100 cases, among 30,000,000 people born outside the US. According to the CDC's website, you are talking about 25 people in 2005 born in Mexico with MDR-TB. out of about 10 million, legal and illegal immigrants. Better to spend our money helping Mexico eliminate TB.

of course, when immigrant populations are banned from seeking medical care, you have outbreaks of disease. it's a nice catch-22 isn't it? remove access to medical care, they will get sicker, and then we can complain about them being sick. works a treat.

of all the potential problems with illegal immigration, people bringing disease isn't very high on the list, frankly, And I should have mentioned that the two people being quarantined for the worst cases of MDR-TB are Americans.

[TwilightGardener]

241. I'm not sure why you're making an issue of this. Yes, disease is a standard

concern for people coming to and from countries. That's all I'm saying. We are in an age of possible worldwide epidemics (TB, flu's, ebola, AIDS, etc.)--we need to know what's coming here. I'm not saying that to keep people OUT, or as an excuse for deportation--just that it's a concern. Again, I am FOR citizenship for the illegals here. Give it a rest. I mentioned disease briefly, and people are making a weirdly big issue out of it, as if it's racist to be concerned.

[LSK]

39. I dont care

I dont listen to right wing radio so this is not a big issue for me.

[Bridget Burke]

95. It was a great distraction from Iraq.

From the Houston Chronicle:

The conservative grassroots, amplified by a vocal talk radio campaign, rebelled against what they immediately labeled as an amnesty for lawbreakers, rejecting the contentions by Bush and others that illegal immigrants were not getting a free handout and instead would have to pay fines and back taxes, learn English and wait for years before they could consider applying for legal permanent residence.

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4928175.html

Yes, the bill hardly offered "amnesty." I wasn't very happy with it, but both my Senators voted against it. (So it had its good points.)

Both Republican senators from Texas — Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, who had battled for weeks to make the bill more conservative — voted, as expected, to bring it down, bucking their president on his chief domestic policy priority.

Now the undocumented will remain unable to improve their lot. Hutchison's & Cornyn's supporters in the Texas business community are happy.

(As are the usual clueless xenophobes.)

[nonconformist]

49. Well, I'm happy

This bill was a piece of shit that didn't solve anything.

[cgrindley]

55. But it wasn't a great bill, it deserved to die on the floor

a great bill would contain an actual amnesty, a great bill would completely re-set US immigration rules, a great bill would thoroughly recreate INS (after dragging it away from the super retarded department of homeland security) and so on.

Just wait for a democrat president, senate and house, and then we'll get proper reform to go through.

[Matsubara]

56. So, I guess that makes me truly evil...

I didn't support that legislation, since it was a total non-solution.

The only people who benefit by guest worker programs and amnesties are the repug scofflaw employers who do not want to pay a decent wage for a day's work.

The real solution is immensely beefed up enforcement of labor and immigration laws on the employers' side. Not only should they be fined heavily for hiring illegal immigrants, they should pay the costs incurred in deporting them. Pay a decent wage, and Americans and legal immigrants WILL do the work.


But thanks for calling those of us who oppose using impoverished people as unwitting scabs "evil". The majority of democrats support strong enforcement of immigration laws. So do the majority of hispanics. I guess they're evil too.

[pitohui]

86. no you're not evil at all

i have never understood why any DUer should support the use of illegal immigrants as "scabs" to keep down wages, we are the ones who might otherwise be able to earn a living as a landscaper, construction worker, etc. not the ones who want to keep slaves

rich GOP scumbags are the ones who want illegal immigrants here, so that they can exploit them, let them solve this problem of their own creation

[Bridget Burke]

104. "Scabs" take the jobs of Union workers out on strike.

How many of the lost jobs were unionized?

Here's a statement on immigrant rights issued by the AFL-CIO & other labor groups. Do you agree or disagree?
www.aflcio.org/issues/civilrights/immigration/upload/UnityBlueprint.pdf

I wasn't in love with the proposed legislation, but my senators (Cornyn & Hutchison) voted against it. Because they are friends of American Labor?

[Matsubara]

115. I'm aware of what a scab is.

And the fact that a job is not unionized doesn't mean that the person doing it shouldn't get a living wage.

The illegals are not acting as scabs, at least not from their own perspective.

But from the perspective of the scumbag employer, they perform the same role as a scab, taking the job for a shit wage, in place of an American who would be guaranteed a better one by our labor laws.

Get it?

[Bridget Burke]

139. Yes, I "get it."

English is a flexible language. It's fun to make up new definitions!

What do you think about the linked document--showing organized labor's thoughts on immigrant rights?

And do you think Cornyn & Hutchison voted "no" because they care about the workers? Or because the think killing the bill would benefit their donors?

[Matsubara]

217. I don't know Cornyn & Hutchinson's reason for their vote...

...my assumption is that they concluded that the negative sentiments from their electorate outweighed the benefits they'd get by helping the fatcat employers of illegal immigrants.


And I disagree completely with the AFL-CIO's position (and they do NOT speak for all of organized labor, the issue is contentious even within their own ranks) here, as it's as much a non-solution as the bill that just failed to pass.

The problem is not too much enforcement on the employer side, it's the exact opposite. Companies should be penalized for exploiting illegal labor, and they should have to compensate the people they exploit by paying for the cost of their deportation and resettlement.


Again, POS Bush and other greedhead repukes supported this bill for a reason, and the reason is not a desire to help immigrants.

[Bridget Burke]

228. It was a win/win situation for Cornyn & Hutchison.

Their vote pacified the wing-nut, racist "deport 'em all" crowd.

While ensuring that the situation would not change for those whose wealth comes from suppressing workers' wages--their more powerful supporters. No legal status for the immigrants--no chance for them to organize. The ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS can continue as before.

Since you rejected the AFL/CIO immigration recommendations, can you recommend a site where I can read opposing views? Union views, that is.

[erpowers]

80. My Problem

My biggest problem with this bill was that I did not think it was going to work. I do not hate illegal immigrants, but I want a bill that will actually solve the problem. There was no way, in my opinion that this bill was going to solve any of the problems. In my opinion very few illegal immigrants would have done what this bill required to become citizens when they could just stay here and hide.

[Vinca]

84. In all honesty, if the bill had passed do you think it would have turned

out any better than 1986? The whole "bringing them out of the shadows" rhetoric is just feel-good BS. No one's going to follow 12 million people around for years and years to be sure they're paying their taxes and paying their fines and staying out of trouble and learning English, etc., etc., etc. In addition, as soon as employers are forced to pay a decent wage to these poor people, they'll be out on the street with the Americans and more slave labor will be herded across the border. Get the damn border closed and then we'll talk.

[greyghost]

88. That's the system that's been...

in place for years and they are simply trying to continue the cycle.:toast:

[Throd]

96. Absolutely!

As long as there is an open border and millions of desperate people from a country whose goverment wants them to leave so they can avoid reforms...Well, it's all just pissin' into the wind.

[TwilightGardener]

102. Didn't this bill provide more money for border security--like 4.4 billion?

[Jim Warren]

106. The wording of the bill

was "as funds become available". The border security component was added to quiet dissent with the base but was a sham. Funding was keyed to fees and fines that immigrant candidates were supposed to be paying. That was not gonna happen.

The upshot, either way as it stands, is I don't think we'll be seeing much change in the near future with border security.

[TwilightGardener]

111. I agree that border security is a must.

[WinkyDink]

98. Wasn't this Bush's bill?

[Jim Warren]

101. Big Time!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070610/pl_nm/usa_immigration_mexico_dc

[pampango]

105. I think Kennedy would want some credit, too, n/t

[blackbartroberts]

112. How about a real Illegal alien bill for a change?

Maybe now that this silly bill has been killed congress can
get around to some real immigration reform. Why not just amend
the constitution to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving any
form government assistance. No health care, school, etc.
Specific federal laws prohibiting illegal aliens driver's
license and the ability to buy/own property in the U.S.

Won't they just go away if we take away the reasons they come
here in the first place?

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blackbartroberts]

121. Elitist response

Why the elitist response. Are you suggesting that you know
better than I? What are you? A Senator?

[havocmom]

122. What is the deal with criticism of post counts and/or time here when someone disagrees?

:shrug:

Hey, you haven't been here as long as a lot of others; should we suggest you go beef up your post count before we consider your arguments? No, that is not constructive at all.

:wtf: is with hassling new DUers?

[RB TexLa]

125. Only time I've ever pointed it out. That was their first post

urging that health care be denied to someone who can not prove they are here with certain papers.

[blackbartroberts]

127. Perhaps I was not clear enough

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was not suggesting that
medical treatment be refused somebody that had the means to
pay for it. I was only suggesting that it should be illegal
for our tax dollars to pay for it. 

Couldn't we eliminate the trouble and expense of deportation,
background checks, special id cards, etc if the aliens just
went home because the gravy train had dried up? 

Couldn't we instead use all that money and the fence money to
provide assistance to needy Americans?

[Megahurtz]

204. Yea Good Post!

:applause:

[havocmom]

130. Only time you have used it here. But it has been used up-thread by others

What is the point? It doesn't enlighten anyone. It doesn't lend any constructive branch to the debate/discussion. It is a TOTAL straw man stunt. It is rude. It discourages new people who may bring good points to consider to discussion. It really comes damn close to personal attack which is forbidden around here.

Thought maybe someone who uses the technique could clue me in and tell me what legitimate argument or debate skill such action serves.

Shall any of us be able to make rude suggestions to anyone who has been here a shorter time and/or have lower post counts? Can I send someone to a thread with the advice that they build up their post counts just because I might have more than they do or been here longer?

How is ANY helpful debate served by making these rude and border-line attacks on newbies? We need to embrace new allies around here. If someone really is a troll or mole, it will become evident in time and dealt with. I know for a fact some really good people have become inactive members due to such behavior. Who knows how many really good people decline to participate because of the practice? We might be missing out on some really powerful people joining our ranks at DU.

Going about asking for bona-fides (via the laughable standard of post counts & time) from posters one doesn't agree with while trying to make a case for not asking for proof of legal status for someone seeking services is an irony beyond the pale.

Papers?
Post Counts?
Sounds sorta similar.

:rofl:

[RB TexLa]

132. allies? Someone who wants EMT's to make sure one is 'Merican before treating their heart attack?

I'll pass on allies like that.

[havocmom]

133. If ya don't like someone's opinion, you might consider trying to change it

When people get attacked on their new-ness, it demonstrates that the attacker's got nuttin.

[BlooInBloo]

138. lol! Someone said that? I'm with you - I'll pass on that sort of "ally".

[blackbartroberts]

145. Good point... Kinda...

Perhaps such emergency treatment should be administered first and questions asked later. What would be your objection to stabilizing the heart attack and then sending them home to a hospital in their country of origin?

[Bridget Burke]

142. It's a reflex response to idiotic posts.

But dissecting the idiocy is more useful.

(Or just pointing & laughing.)

[blackbartroberts]

144. Please dissect

I would love to hear why you might think my post is idiotic. I am trying to make up my mind about which way I think this country should go. I figured I might hear some new opinions by joining in the conversation on this board. So far I have been disappointed to see that there has not been one substantive reply to my opinion.

[Bridget Burke]

147. I'd rather point & laugh.

And I never cared much for dissection. (Still remembering that fetal pig in Biology II.)

[blackbartroberts]

159. Ok then

Guess there is nothing to be learned from your opinion
anyway??

[havocmom]

157. Hang in there, blackbartroberts

Sometimes the sane shift comes on a bit later ;)

Welcome to DU.

[blackbartroberts]

187. Thanks

I didn't expect everybody to agree with me on everything. I
was specifically hoping that some people would disagree with
me although I was hoping for more substantive arguments.

I am not just trying to stir up trouble; I think hearing and
understanding a variety of opinions is healthy.

[LostinVA]

120. Wow. Unreal.

[blackbartroberts]

124. Please elaborate

Please elaborate.

[Bridget Burke]

141. Why not throw some "illegal employers" into jail?

People come to the USA for jobs.

And many of the kids are citizens. I don't have children, but I want all the children here to get as much education as they can handle.

And why amend the Constitution?

[blackbartroberts]

143. I would support jailing the illegal employers

I suggested amending the constitution because the courts have,
in multiple instances, declared the will of the people
unconstitutional on the issue of illegal aliens receiving
government assistance.

Also, regarding the children, the constitution is vague
regarding the citizenship status of the children of illegal
aliens. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside." I heard it argued
that the children of illegal aliens are not "subject to
the jurisdiction thereof" and are thus not citizens. Now,
no matter if you think these children should be considered
citizens or if you think they should be considered illegal
aliens, I would think that you would be in favor of clarifying
the issue. 

[Bridget Burke]

146. Leave the Constitution alone.

No, I'm not in favor of "clarifying the issue."

People come here to work, not to receive government assistance.

[blackbartroberts]

148. An originalist?

Do you have any evidence to support that claim? If you are correct why not try my idea? The aliens would stay and I would be proven wrong.

[Bridget Burke]

149. If they were born here, they are not aliens.

Why did you join just to post on this topic?

[blackbartroberts]

154. Debatable

I have already addressed both of your points, but I will go through it one more time.

I joined because I am trying to decide which way I want the country to go in the future. I thought this forum would provide some fresh perspective for me. I posted on this topic because I just joined today and this is today's hottest topic. What is wrong with that other than the fact that you disagree with me? Would you prefer I sought out the perspective of people on a conservative website? Here is your chance to get me leaning left. Why not take it?

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside." I have heard it argued
that the children of illegal aliens are not "subject to
the jurisdiction thereof" and are thus not citizens.

I haven't yet made up my mind yet if I think the children of aliens should be citizens or aliens. However, I am not convinced that the constitution supports your opinion that because they were born here they are citizens. I think that "under the jurisdiction thereof" makes pretty clear that children born in the country to people legally in the country (citizens, valid green card, etc)are citizens, but I think it is vague as to whether illegals are "under the jurisdiction thereof."

[LSK]

158. Todays hottest topic is Cheney

Maybe turn off right wing hate radio for once?

:shrug:

[blackbartroberts]

170. No radio here today.

Just been surfing the net today. I haven't listend to any
radio today although I find it to be a pretty week argument to
claim that right wing radio is all hate radio. Don't the rules
here at DU say something about not making broad brush
statements?

As I am looking at my dashboard the top 3 AP stories are:
1)Senate Blocks Immigration Bill, 2)Court limits schools on
race, stops execution, and 3)Bush won't supply subpoenaed
documents.

Based upon the current top AP stories it seems reasonable to
say the immigration bill is the day's hottest topic regardless
of what is or is not being discussed on radio.

[LSK]

175. and we all know about the left wing media

:rofl:

[blackbartroberts]

183. Glad you amuse yourself.

When did I say anything about left wing media?

[Bridget Burke]

225. Which Right Wing Radio shows do you recommend?

The ones that aren't Hate Radio--that is.

[blackbartroberts]

230. Crane Durham

Crane Durham is the only show I listen to on a somewhat
regular basis. I don't think he is nationally syndicated so if
you want to check him out you will have to stream his show
from 97.1 FM talk's website.

[Bridget Burke]

254. I found Crane Durham's website.....

He's a self-proclaimed good Christian & a former tennis coach. Young Crane has nothing but praise for the military--but he's never served. (Let me guess--you're young, too. A young civilian.)

Sounds like another chickenhawk to me. Oh, and he likes Ann Coulter!

www.nothingbuttruth.com/index.cfm

[Bridget Burke]

169. It seems as though you're already well acquainted with the conservative websites.

The wish to change the right of the native-born to citizenship, after all these years, is one of the latest talking-points on the Right.

[blackbartroberts]

179. Never said I haven't looked at other sites.

The native-born issue is by no means new. It is not accurate
to say that there is a wish to make a change to a long
standing law.

Elk v. Wilkins in 1884, the Supreme Court ruled that a native
born Indian could not become a citizen of the United States by
renouncing allegiance to his tribe. A native born Indian was
determined not to be a citizen.

In 1898, the Supreme Court heard the case of United States v.
Wong Kim Ark. Under the ruling, children of [b]legal
immigrants[/b] were automatic citizens. Chief Justice Melville
W. Fuller dissented because, in his opinion, the ruling
granting citizenship to the children of legal immigrants went
against the original intent of the amendment's authors. 

[LSK]

150. ok, then lets start this program in IRAQ

www.costofwar.com

[blackbartroberts]

155. ???

Deny benefits to the Iranian and other foreign terrorists? I am not sure what you mean.

[LSK]

156. well, your tax dollars are paying for Iraqi schools, healthcare, etc

The main point is that what we have spent on the Iraq war BLOWS away anything we have spent on benefits illegals get.

[blackbartroberts]

160. Oh. I agree with some of what you say.

Your numbers are wrong though. The illegals have cost us much
more than Iraq.

But, like you, I don't think we should be paying for
rebuilding. I think that is another one of the
responsibilities that the Iraqis should be assuming for
themselves. 

I could go on some more about Iraq, but I would rather stick
to the illegal alien topic for now.

[LSK]

161. well my numbers say $438 billion so far, what do you have?

www.costofwar.com

[blackbartroberts]

174. At an average of 22K per alien per year

it comes to $660 billion for just 30 million illegal aliens. I
would say that 30 million illegal aliens is a pretty
conservative estimate even if we only go back as far as 1986.

[LSK]

177. $22k per illegal immigrant???????????????

Can you explain what that 22k comprises of?

Also its a long standing tradition that you provide sources on this website. Please do so.

[blackbartroberts]

181. You are right. Sorry for not citing a source.

"Heritage research has shown that low skill immigrants (those without a high school degree) receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay. This imbalance imposes a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime, the typical low skill immigrant household will cost taxpayers $1.2 million.<4>"

"Heritage research has concluded that the cost of amnesty alone will be $2.6 trillion once the amnesty recipients reach retirement age."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1523.cfm

I am aware that Heritage is a conservative organization. If you disagree with their research please cite your evidence rather than simply dismissing the Heritage numbers as right wing hate or something.

[LSK]

184. he assumes they will be low skilled workers their whole life

So therefore wouldnt it be a benefit economically to put them through school?

[blackbartroberts]

189. Plenty of American kids that could use the money for education

No. In my opinion it would benefit economically to let their
own governments put them through school so we can use the
money to help millions of American children that need
education assistance.

[LSK]

190. or we can not have illegal wars and pay for all of it

Like we were doing when Clinton left office.

[blackbartroberts]

197. No war bill means big attacks at home.

No war over there means big attacks over here. Cleaning up
multiple 911 style attacks will be awfully expensive. Maybe
not as expensive in terms of dollars, but much more expensive
in terms of American (and probably a few illegal alien) lives
lost.

[Bridget Burke]

226. So--we're fighting them over there so we won't need to fight them over here!

You're really full of them, aren't you?

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

253. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator, not a radical Muslim.

You're the one with your head in the sand. And your hindquarters exposed.

[LSK]

186. his numbers are flawed

Social Security is a seperate program from the normal tax system. You have to pay into it to get anything out of it.

I dont know about you, but I get a sheet from them every year telling me how much money I have earned and how much I would be entitled to if I were to retire at certain ages.

I would assume that immigrants would start at 0 and once they start working would get benefits corresponding to how much money they have made and how much FICA taxes they have paid.

[blackbartroberts]

192. I am aware of the difference in Social Security and Income tax

Do you have a source to back up your assumptions? You know
what they say about assumptions.

[LSK]

194. my assumptions on my Social Security Report I get once a year?

[blackbartroberts]

199. Wow, different reports?

I get my Social Security report quarterly. Oddly enough it
only explains my benefits though. I will have to look into
getting on of those yearly reports that explains how the SSA
plans on handling the collection and distribution of funds to
illegal aliens. 

[LSK]

201. I didnt know SSA distributes anything to illegal aliens

[blackbartroberts]

240. Neither did I

That is why I am so impressed with your magic reports that
give you insight into how the SSA would deal with collection
and distribution to the illegal aliens.

[Bridget Burke]

227. Here's what those Liberals at the Wall Street Journal had to say

About Robert Rector's screed. (Follow the link for the "meat" of the argument. We only clip a few paragraphs for the sake of copyright rules.)

The immigration debate is roaring again, and we're happy to join the fun. One place to start is a myth that has become a key talking point among restrictionists on the right--to wit, that immigrants come to the U.S. for a life of ease on the public dole.

Leading this charge is the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, who argues in a new study that "the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be $1.1 million" for each low-skilled immigrant household. Hispanic immigrants and their families are a net national drain, he says, because they "assimilate into welfare." ....

As Congress debates immigration policy, the Members should keep in mind that the melting pot is still working; that taxes by immigrants cover their use of public services; and that finding a way to let immigrants work in the U.S. legally is the humane and pro-growth solution to the illegal immigration problem.

www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010116

Rector is a right wing tool who's also famous for pushing Abstinence rather than Sex Education.

[blackbartroberts]

244. Sounds like he said he said to me

Did I miss the author of that article? I didn't see it but
whoever he/she is it looks like they do make some good points
although I think it is naive to think that all the rules and
policies he lays out will be correctly followed. 

Also, the article seems to address legal immigration. I am all
for legal immigration. My grandparents were legal immigrants.
However, I believe that as a sovereign nation we have a right
to establish and enforce immigration laws for the benefit of
this nation rather than for the benefit of any potential
immigrant that wants to move here. 

The end of the article mentioned a pro-growth solution. What
happened to the population bomb? I thought the experts are
saying there are too many of us here for our environment to
support. 

I'm not sure what relevance Rector's position on abstinence
has to the topic of illegal aliens. Do you know anybody that
has contracted a disease or become pregnant with an illegal
alien after practicing abstinence or something? 

[Bridget Burke]

252. Which experts told you about the population bomb?

Rector's abstinence position relates directly to his being a Right Wing mouthpiece.

[blackbartroberts]

256. Paul Ehrlich for one...

I think Ted Turner used to say that mankind is breeding like
"a plague of locusts." Zero Population Growth, now
calling themselves Population Connection
[url]http://www.zpg.org[/url]  asserts that the population of
the U.S. is too large to protect the environment. How long of
a list do you want? 

Do only left-wing mouthpieces carry any weight with you? Is
your mind closed to the possibility that some good ideas may
come from conservatives? That doesn't sound like a very
liberal or tolerant opinion to me. Maybe you are really a
closed-minded conservative?

Who said abstinence -v- sex ed was a liberal -v- conservative
issue in the first place? I know some extremely liberal
Catholics that would side with Rector on that issue. I, on the
other hand, would favor teaching abstinence as a part of a sex
education program. After all, abstinence is the only method
that has been 100% effective at preventing unwanted
pregnancies and the spread of STD's. 

As a side note to the above, if it were up to me, parents
would be allowed opt their children out of any sex education
program regardless of the content.

[Bridget Burke]

260. ZPG is now "Population Connection: Education & Action For a Better World"

Here's the new link: www.populationconnection.org/

"Education" The group supports comprehensive sex education, including information on contraception. Not "Abstinence only." Currently, parents are free to exempt their little darlings from sex education in schools. Unfortunately, some seek to dumb-down the curriculum for all children.

"For a Better World" Overpopulation is a Global problem. Trying to make the USA into a Gated Community won't solve the anything.

I will not listen to a lecture on "good ideas" from anyone who thinks that Iraq (or Iran) had one thing to do with 9/1l.

[blackbartroberts]

263. Do you even read what I write or do you just make it up in your head?

I am aware that ZPG is now calling themselves Population
Connection. I mentioned that and provided a link the the page
where they announced their name change in my last reply to
you.

ZPG/Population Connection may have been a bad example since
they do in fact seem to have more of a global interest. It is,
however, a fact that there are plenty of people who believe
that the United States is overpopulated.

Calm down about the Sex Ed business. If you weren't so busy
breathing fire you would see that I pretty much agree with you
on the value of quality sex ed.

Regarding 9/11 and Iraq, I never claimed Iraq was responsible
for 9/11. If fact, I specifically said I knew they were not
behind that particular attack.

"You won't listen... "I am sorry to see how
closed-minded and you are. I expected more.

[Bridget Burke]

164. LSK means that we're wasting resources (human & financial) in Iraq.

All the "benefits" paid to "illegals" are only a tiny percentage of what the war is costing us. All that money could be used to help everybody in this country.

Of course, the "Immigration Crisis" distracts people from Bush's illegal war. Do you think invading Iraq was a good idea?

[RB TexLa]

180. Oh, now, the poster has alreay said they don't want to talk about Iraq, wants to stay focused on

"illegals"

[blackbartroberts]

182. I'll talk about iraq if you can't make an immigration argument.

I am fairly new to chat boards and I thought it was the etiquette to stay on topic. Am I wrong?

[blackbartroberts]

185. Don't think Iraq is more expensive than illegal aliens

Ok, I guess I am suckered into getting off topic. How is the
war illegal? 

I do think invading Iraq was a good idea. Radical muslims have
decided there is going to be a fight. I would prefer that
fight take place in the middle-east rather than here at home
in the mid-west.

I don't think everything in Iraq has been done right, but I
don't want us to remove combat troops until such time as there
are no more radicals devoted to killing me. You may disagree,
but I do believe that what we do over there makes it harder
for them to operate over here. To me it is a matter of
resources. Any suicide bombers killed over there, any bullets
fired over there are at least one more that can't be used
here.

People on the left and right all seem to agree that Bush is an
idiot. Under that assumption I find it hard to believe that
the "Immigration Crisis" is a distraction ploy. How
much of an idiot are Kennedy and Reid if they were fooled into
providing Bush a distraction? To me Bush can be either an
idiot or an evil genius but not both.

[LSK]

188. The US Constitution states all treaties are the law of the land

The US is a signatory of the UN Charter which states wars can only be fought if you are invaded or per UN Security Council Resolution. Neither condition holds.

The radical muslims which you speak of were in Afghanistan and of Saudi origin. They were also not welcomed by Saddam Hussian, as he saw them as a threat to his power. Dont bother pointing to Saddam paying off families of Palestian suicide bombers because that is a completely seperate issue involving Israel and its oppression in the West Bank.

You cannot eliminate every "radical devoted to killing me" as every time an innocent is killed in Iraq, that person has family who has the potential to become a new "radical devoted to killing me"

Your facts and views on the Iraq War and the War on Terror are incredibly simplistic and ignorant. No wonder you do not want to get sucked into this debate.

[blackbartroberts]

195. As long as the fight is over there.

Like Vietnam, Korea, Gulf I, Kosovo, Somalia, etc Iraq is a
military action not a war. Congress authorized the use of
force, but did not declare war. View it as a legal loop hole
if you like, but the UN Charter does not apply. GW Bush along
with Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain, and the rest of
Congress did not do anything new or illegal with the invasion
of Iraq.

As far as I am concerned a radical muslim devoted to killing
me is a radical muslim devoted to killing me no matter what
his country of origin. Simple? Maybe, but why complicate
things more than is necessary? 

I am aware that it is not realistic to expect that every
radical muslim can be killed. I guess to simplify things
further I should have said that I think we should have a
permenant combat force in the middle-east. 

[peaches2003]

131. It weakens Bush so it is fine

I am thrilled the immigration bill went down to defeat.

1.- It was a farce and was going to do nothing to help immigrants or fix the problem of illegal immigrants. All it would do is give Bush his 'legacy' of having done something to solve the immigration problem, when it fact it did nothing. This is what he wanted.

2. It was a complete DEFEAT for Bush. He is so weak now he is virtually powerless and it may now help some of the gutless Repugs find the balls to go against him on the war. This is first and foremost what we want. His fighting subpeonas now makes him look even more on the defensive like the fool he is.

[napi21]

140. I disagree with you. That bill was unworkable!

Z card issued based upon results of a 24 hr background check or 24 hrs, whichever comes first! Comeon folks! Look at the mess the Feds have made with the new passport laws, and the mess with the Immigration Dept. not ablt to process papers promptly & efficiently. Do you REALLY BELIEVE they could do 12 MILLION background checks in 24 hours????

Applicants must pay a stiff fine! I heard this fine was between $7,000 and $15,000. Just how many illegals have that kind of money?????

Add 30,000 bordr security guards! YEA RIGHT! The same as they already added the 20,000 Shrub promised last year that never materialized! In fact instead of adding, he's stollen some border security guards to help the Secreat Service protect the 2008 candidates!!!!


I could go on and on, line by line of this stupid law, and have the same results. PIE IN THE SKY! None of it was realistic!

I still say enforce the current laws you've got. If there's a problem with the ID cards, then FIX THE DAMN ID SYSTEM, but you don't NEED any new laws to be added to the ones you already don't enforce!

[Yukari Yakumo]

193. As for the 30,000 border guards

I'm all for it... We have the resources...

As soon as we get out of Iraq.

Because we'll have plenty of men to guard the border then.

[mmonk]

152. I would say wait until another time

when America is back before putting forth a immigration bill. But that time may not come in my lifetime.

[Raine]

168. It's for the best

does anyone honestly think that anything promoted by chimp is anything other than a piece of shit. x(

[blackbartroberts]

196. Interesting Theory

I read an opinion piece last week that basically said we need
to give the illegal aliens amnesty and encourage more Mexican
immigration for the stability of the oil market.

The thought was that these immigrants are unsatisfied at home
and if they stay there they will revolt and throw Mexico into
chaos. As a major oil exporter, chaos in Mexico would cause
oil prices to skyrocket thus hurting the American Economy.

Any thoughts?

[havocmom]

234. Could be the Oil Industry in the US is tired of paying decent wages too

If they could have a more desperate workforce to exploit, their profits would soar and they would be 'more stable' ...just something to ponder.

Some corporations really need to fight hire them here so they don't have to fight fight them over there. Ya just can't outsource everything ya wanna save money on. ;)

[blackbartroberts]

237. Nationalized in Mexico

Does anybody know if the oil industry is nationalized in
Mexico the way it is in Venezuela? 

If not oil companies may fear that following a revolution in
Mexico the new government may nationalize oil and kick the oil
companies out?

[blackbartroberts]

238. Yep

Just read that the oil industry in Mexico has been
Nationalized since 1938. So, maybe oil companies would want to
stop immigration and hope for a revolution in Mexico that
might lead to a new government willing to let foreign oil
companies in?

[Jim Warren]

239. Yes it is.

Pemex was nationalized in 1936.

An aside on Pemex, J. Paul Getty once declared Pemex to be the only major oil company in the world to never show a profit,

[blackbartroberts]

247. What kind of living do oil workers earn

I wonder what kind of living oil workers earn? For example how
well of financially is an Exxon oil rig employee?

If Pemex is not able to show a profit maybe they need some
organizational and operational help. Would it be possible for
more Mexicans to earn a better wage in Mexico as oil workers
if the Mexican government decided to allow some corporate
involvement. What if Mexico allowed Connoco/Phillips some oil
rights if they employed a certain quota of Mexican labor at a
specified rate of pay?

[Jim Warren]

251. some current background

Mr. Getty was of course speaking tongue firmly in cheek.

I recall, living in Mx for some years back in the '80s, the head of the petroleum workers union, Durazno?, securing something close to a billion dollars in Swiss accounts for his personal retirement.

Historically the record of corruption is abysmal, currently it's not much better.

http://www.mexidata.info/id1365.html

[Jim Warren]

236. Here's one

but it has more to do with oil company cronyism than concern for hurting the American economy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070610/pl_nm/usa_immigration_mexico_dc

[RadiDem]

206. You mean the 'cheap labor for corporate globalist union-hating elites' disguised as 'immigration'?

[RB TexLa]

209. Ever try calling them human beings instead of an object to blame?

[blackbartroberts]

233. Human beings, but also criminals

Yes, of course they are human beings. I haven't seen anybody
here suggest that the aliens should be round up and shot or
pushed off a cliff or anything. So, yes, human beings but they
are also criminals - every single illegal alien is a criminal
hence the term ILLEGAL alien.

[bleedingheart]

245. bull....they aren't criminals...they are poor folks looking to feed themselves and their families

just like my immigrant grandparents...

If anything...you know who the criminals are...the Mexican Goverment and the Roman Catholic church that does nothing to improve the conditions of the Mexican people...and how you ask?

Probably the largest export of the Mexican Government is the downtrodden cheap labor they can send north to the US businesses...they produce poor people that can help drive down wages so that the rich stay rich...

How is the Church involved...Birth Control and Abortion...cuz they encourage people to be fruitful and multiply...so that they can have even more kids that starve...further incentive to move North so that they can feed those poor children.

Criminals....the criminals are the folks who take advantage of the poor...whether illegal or not.

[blackbartroberts]

246. We have something in common

My grandparents were also immigrants. That does not change the
fact that illegal means illegal. Those who violate laws are
criminals. 

If the Mexican government and the Church are to blame for
their condition let these people revolt against or change
Mexican laws rather than violating American laws. Mexicans
have a proud history of rising up against oppressive
government. Let them do it again if their government is to
blame for their poor living conditions.

[pampango]

248. Do you feel the same way about the American poor?

If they break a law in order to feed their family, would you classify them as criminals as well?

[blackbartroberts]

249. Yes

With all the government and private programs out there,
especially for children, I see no reason why any American
would be forced to break laws to feed their family.

What law are you talking about here anyway. Obviously I am not
suggesting we deport or imprison somebody for stealing an
apple from a market. There are different levels of criminal
activity. 

I am not suggesting that we kill or imprison illegal aliens
either. I just want them to try to better themselves at home.
If that means going through legal channels to come to the U.S.
I am fine with that.

[pampango]

255. The "crime" of the illegal workers is working at a job.

There is no comparable crime for citizens. We do call drug dealers and bank robbers "criminals" but society has decided that their "jobs" are not socially constructive. The same cannot be said for the jobs the illegal aliens work at (for the most part.) Just like you would not deport someone who steals an apple (which is a crime), I would not deport someone for working at a socially useful job.

If you have ever lived in the Third World, you know how difficult it is for a poor person to "pull himself up by his own bootstraps." If a poor Mexican believes that he cannot support his family if he stays there, he has a choice to make. He can stay and fight for truth, justice and the Mexican way and risk his family's welfare, or he can immigrate and feed his family.

You and I may wish that he would stay there, risk his family's future, and battle for a better future in Mexico, but I do not feel morally superior enough to make the decision for him. Likewise, many at DU may feel that I should quit my job and become a full-time community/political activist which enable me to do more to improve my society, though my family and I would suffer financially. I choose not to do so and to continue working at my job, largely for selfish and family reasons.

[blackbartroberts]

257. My selfish family reasons

As you continue to work at your job for largely selfish and
family reasons perhaps you can understand that I oppose
allowing this invasion of illegal aliens for similar reasons.
I, selfishly, oppose this flood of illegal aliens because they
lower my wages. Others in my industry (roofing) have lost
their jobs to cheap illegal labor. 

I am not opposed to these aliens improving their lot in life,
but I am not willing to let them do it by pulling me down.

[pampango]

258. While I sometimes pursue my interests for selfish reasons,

I do not seek to impose restrictions on others who attempt to do the same in a socially acceptable manner. It may be in my selfish interest to prohibit women, blacks, teenagers, Jews, Catholics, or any other group from competing with me for my job or lowering my wages. That does not give me the right to do it. They have every right to pursue their success and prosperity, as do I. In point of fact their success makes my success more likely and enjoyable, but the same could be said for the illegal immigrants. (I know they are Mexicans, not American women, blacks, teenagers, Jews, Catholics, etc., but that is not their fault. They were born that way.)

[blackbartroberts]

262. Not socially acceptable

The fact that these aliens are entering the country and
working here illegally means that what they are doing is not
socially acceptable. When did disregard for the laws of this
country become socially acceptable?

[pampango]

264. I used the term "socially acceptable" to refer to the nature of the jobs

they do, to distinguish them from muggers and drug dealers.

You and I would probably agree that the work most illegal immigrants do is legal, as well as economically and socially useful. Where we disagree is the extent to which the location of their job site changes their work from socially useful to unacceptable. They are not criminals at heart in the sense that they have not intention of hurting anyone. In the "Black and White" world where there is no "gray" they are "criminals" in law and should be fired from their jobs, as should all speeders, drug users, and drunk drivers (these people actually could be a threat to others). If you are for cleansing our workforce of all criminals, I would have to give that idea some thought.

[blackbartroberts]

265. I don't think the work is socially or economically useful

I don't mean to suggest that these aliens are evil or violent
people. I understand that installing roofing, picking fruit,
or any other job the illegal aliens may do may be legal and
respectable professions. The problem is that they are not
eligible to participate in those professions in this country.

Illegal Aliens doing these jobs is only economically and
socially useful to themselves. To the American workers they
are illegally displacing the aliens are socially and
economically harmful.

I know I sound cold and uncaring, but I do feel some
compassion for these less fortunate people. However, I think
we need to take care of ourselves and our own less fortunate
before we try to solve Mexico or any other country's economic
and social problems.

[pampango]

266. I don't think that Illegal aliens are causing economic harm to Americans,

any more than Blacks entering the workforce after the Civil War or women entering the workforce in the last century. Surely to some extent Blacks and women competed with men for some jobs and the increased supply of labor probably reduced wages for a while, but in the long run it was a good thing for society and the economy.

I am sure there are some Americans who are harmed economically by the presence of illegal workers, just as there were some were harmed by Blacks and women (Heck I probably "harmed" someone by taking a job that someone else would have gotten if I didn't take it). We are fortunate that minorities in our country have been more fully integrated into society than they were in centuries past, even though it may have been rough going at the start for them and for some white male workers.

I know that people here have opposed immigration since the days of the Irish, probably before that. Hey, that's what the Know Nothing Party was all about. We all have a tendency to say, "I got here first. I've got mine and you're not getting it." I just think we should try to get beyond that.

[blackbartroberts]

267. Thank you pampango

This is the kind of useful discussion I was hoping for when I
joined DU. 

I want to be clear that I do not oppose immigration. I will
even go so far as to say that I think it is essential to the
future good of our nation. I don't care where those immigrants
come from either. I am not biased against Mexicans or
anything.

The difference I see between these illegal aliens and others
including immigrants, blacks, women, etc is that one group has
a legal right to compete for jobs on a relatively level
playing field, and the other group doesn't. The vast majority
of Blacks that you mentioned were forced into this country
against their will as slaves and had to be given an
opportunity to support themselves once freed. 

I wouldn't like losing my job to anybody, but I think I could
accept it if I was beat out by somebody more qualified. What I
can't accept is that my wages have gone down and my job is at
risk because of competition from people with no legal right to
be here competing for the job. If an employer can get away
with paying an illegal alien below the minimum wage why would
he consider paying me scale?

Assuming it would even be possible to legalize and document
the 12-30 illegal aliens in the country so that they are
protected by labor laws; what is to stop the next batch of
12-30 million aliens. Why would they not be encouraged that
eventually they too would be granted legal status.

[pampango]

268. Thanks to you too, blackbartroberts.

I agree that legalizing the 12 million who are here would be a herculean task, but so would deporting them. Would more then come? Probably, but most of them are going to come anyway. There is not wall high enough and no border guards lethal enough to keep a poor person from trying to feed his family. (I have posted before that if we built a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, within two years, DU would be making fun of it and claiming that it is a symbol of American arrogance and lack of interest in the rest of the world. ;) )

It's kind of like trying to answer the question, "How do you make the problems of the world go away?" If Mexico didn't have problems, the immigrants wouldn't be a problem either. The world is full of problems. Most of them are pretty far away from us, but this one isn't. Not sure that retreating from the world or walling it off, is the most productive solution to a better world.

I suppose my few years in the Peace Corps gave me a "warped" outlook. I don't see Mexicans, or any one else, as illegal or less entitled just because of where they were born, any more than I would because of what color or gender or religion they are. They don't have control over any of those things.

I realize "that is just how things are." I just don't like it and look forward to the day it changes.

[bleedingheart]

243. human beings used as cheap labor...seems like a fair statement

just like my grandfather was back in the 1920's...Croatian immigrant with no money and poor english skills who got the privilege of coal mining for a $1 a day and it was paid in company script and not even in real currency....the mules were treated better than the men...

when my granddad became a union man ...the company kicked his family out of the company housing and they were living in a tent...until the strike ended and he then moved on to another mine...

Same story today...

[blackbartroberts]

250. All about cheap/slave labor

Jobs Americans won't do or jobs Americans won't do for such a
low wage. Would there even be such a worry about what the
government set as the minimum wage if there was not a large
supply of illegal aliens willing to work below the minimum
wage? 

With the national unemployment rate under 6% wouldn't wages go
up and unemployment go down if 12 - 30 million illegal aliens
were eliminated from the workforce.