March 29, 2006

The Immigration Bills
— Ace

I haven't been following this very closely, because it's just not one of my big interests and also because I expect that, as usual, absolutely no action will be taken to reduce or regularize illegal immigration.

Red State argues that the Senate version of the bill -- the McCain-Kennedy version -- is actually not as bad as many in the blogosphere argue.

Captain's Quarters, on the other hand, thinks it's awful.

The McCain-Kennedy proposal is relatively generous towards illegal immigrants. If we are going to be generous towards them, can we not finally build a real wall -- not a "virtual" one -- to reduce further illegal immigration as well as to regularize it?

I'm tired of hearing that a wall is racist. It's a border, easily and frequently crossed. It is our nation's right and duty to safeguard that border.

A wall will not fix everything. But if a wall can drastically reduce cross-border terrorism in Israel, it can reduce illegal immigration here.

Some of the best compromises come when people finally give in to their opponents, in exchange for equal concessions. Yes, fine, we lured these people in, and our economy would be badly disrupted were we to suddenly kick them out, so some form of a guest-worker program is needed.

But we also need a wall.

Let's do a trade.

Thanks to the Blogometer, which has further reactions.

Posted by: Ace at 09:09 AM | Comments (83)
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I reject utterly the idea that a guest worker program is needed. Completely. Throw them out, put them back in Mexico with a big hearty FUCK YOU to Vincente Fox and the corrupt Mexican government.

Will the economy take a dip? Yes, initially it will hurt - but not as badly as people might think, and it will be temporary. Whatever initial costs there are, the long term costs illegals are causing will be negated.

Posted by: at March 29, 2006 09:14 AM (1Vbso)

2 I wish Bush would stop saying "They do jobs Americans won't do." Who says? The unemployed guy with principles and values looking to provide for his family?

Posted by: Pixelflash at March 29, 2006 09:15 AM (O+1/6)

3 Illegal immigrants take far more than they provide. California forks over 9 billion a year for illegal immigrants. Not only do we take it in the shorts tax wise, it hurts us personally in that they have driven up the cost of housing, driven down wages, made insurance premiums outrageous. 95% of warrants for murder out of LA County are for mexican nationals. 35% of those in prison for violent crimes are mexican nationals. Schools sucked and we are always getting hit with bond measures to build neew ones for illegal immigrants. Nobody eats that much fkn fruit to cover the cost.

Have I been following the Bills closely? Not really. It's the same old shit. The same old lies from both parties. Build a fucking wall.

Posted by: shawn at March 29, 2006 09:27 AM (uLve2)

4 Its always guys like Bush nd Kennedy spouting that crap about illegals doing work America's won't. Just because neither of those trust fund bastards have ever done a legit days work in thier lives, they assume no American possible would.

Posted by: Roy at March 29, 2006 09:28 AM (xxqLI)

5 Oh, look! The fkers have their own website:
http://xv3gang.com/

Posted by: shawn at March 29, 2006 09:29 AM (uLve2)

6 I think it would be funny if we paid illegals to work out in the sweltering desert building this wall. Because I'm sure not willing to do that work.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 29, 2006 09:57 AM (uSomN)

7 I live in Astoria queens . In my neighborhood there are
about 10 homes in my area that are undergoing home renovation and construction. Every work site without exception is using mexican labor, most probably illeagally
here . Is the President and the open borders crowd
telling me that these illeagals are doing the construction jobs that Americans won't do. My landlord told me he recently did a renovation on one of the other homes he owns up the block from where I rent. He spent about 225K
on the renovation, I asked if the crew he used was mostly mexican or native born, he said that if he hired a union crew the price for the renovation would have been
double. So you see it's not that there are jobs that Americans won't do, it's that we won't do the job for slave wages.

Posted by: Radical Centrist at March 29, 2006 09:59 AM (iWRYt)

8 maybe we should think about an intelligent, networked minefield with heavy surveillance. Wouldn't even have to be lethal...use paintballs or something similar, then up the level of severity as the perp ventures farther in...maybe chemical mace? intelligent meaning that animals wouldn't trigger mines, and that they could be triggered remotely from somebody watching through a camera. seems like it would be cheaper than a wall, and would also be a powerful psychological deterrent. until then, find a few illegals here and there who have been here for a long time and think they're scot free...seize every single one of their assets and deport them before they know what hit them...that would also work as a psychological deterrent to the rest of the illegals.

Posted by: kew8 at March 29, 2006 10:06 AM (yKIx/)

9 I live in the midst of fruit and potato country, and I can guaran-fuckin-tee you that they do work that Americans won't do. We have tons (literally) of fat, white, welfare recipients sitting around here on their asses, and bogarting the electric fat-lady carts at Wallmart, but there is no funcking way in hell that they would do seasonal farm work, even though there is plenty of it available "above the table" as well. Cracking down on the imigrants who come to work hurts the farmers more than anyone, because their crops rot on the trees and in the fields. I'd take the Mexicans I know around here with their work ethic and family values over lazy white trash any day of the week. Those that I see out in the fields, busting their ass 12 hours for $40 a day under the table are a lot more like the people who built this country than the people who need an electric cart to spend their food stamps at Wallmart.

To my mind, the solution is exactly what Kenedy et al. are talking about right now, and Bush proposed during his first year in office (although it wasn't a good idea until a Democrat suggested it). People are always whining about how we should legalize drugs rather than fighting them because a) they hurt the user more than anyone else, b) the associated crime is really the problem, and c) then we could tax them. This is almost the same issue.

Legalize coming here to work and tax them so they pay for their fair share of infrastructure, schools, medical care, etc. ALSO build a wall that we can defend and man it with armed guards just like every other country in the fucking world. Suggesting a wall is only wrong to the media when a republican suggests it, but a huge majority of Americans support it. Some smart politician is going to figure out how to capitalize on this issue in the next Presidential election.

Posted by: Scot at March 29, 2006 10:07 AM (qlZ26)

10 There are no jobs Americans won't do, there's just jobs Americans will tend not to do for the pay that is offered. However, when I was a little canoli I would pick berries and work in farms. It was tough work but it was outdoors and I bought a bicycle and some stuff from the proceeds.

Its true that modern kids are on the whole lazy sluglike creatures, but that doesn't have to be true for kids forever.

Posted by: Canelone at March 29, 2006 10:16 AM (1Vbso)

11 Scot has a point. If the job the illegal is doing pays less than welfare, food stamps and medicare, then of course americans are not going to do that work.

Take away the freebies, make them earn a living, and they would sure as hell do the work. Or starve to death. Either way, I'm fine with it.

Posted by: Vanilla Thunder at March 29, 2006 10:23 AM (JFj6P)

12 Scot, you cut the welfare. It can be simple. Stop complicating it and excusing the poor behavior of others. Once you cut that free check and tell them to work, they'll hustle it on the street if they stillw ant those Doritos. By not doing anything, you're also allowing a broken system (welfare) to continue.

Posted by: Pixelflash at March 29, 2006 10:24 AM (O+1/6)

13 Vanilla Thunder is clearly a compassionate conservative.

Posted by: w00t at March 29, 2006 10:29 AM (Q3OrU)

14 Are we sure that the folks at Redstate don't have friends on the Senate side (staffers maybe)? Perhaps some such connection is coloring their objectivity. (again).

Posted by: Matt at March 29, 2006 10:32 AM (ztNrs)

15 Scot is badly in need of an education. Let's help him out:
Read this

So, [the argument goes] without importing those people into our labor market, these jobs would go unfilled, disrupting the economy (and creating an epidemic of unkempt lawns in Southern California).

This is sheer nonsense. According to a new survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, illegals make up 24 percent of workers in agriculture, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction, and 12 percent in food production. So 86 percent of construction workers, for instance, are either legal immigrants or Americans, despite the fact that this is one of the alleged categories of untouchable jobs.

[...]

The average "consumer unit" in the U.S. spends $7 a week on fresh fruit and vegetables, less than is spent on alcohol, according to Martin. On a $1 head of lettuce, the farm worker gets about 6 or 7 cents, roughly 1/15th of the retail price. Even a big run-up in the cost of labor can't hit the consumer very hard.

Martin recalls that the end of the bracero guest-worker program in the mid-1960s caused a one-year 40 percent wage increase for the United Farm Workers Union. A similar wage increase for legal farm workers today would work out to about a 10-dollar-a-year increase in the average family's bill for fruit and vegetables. Another thing happened with the end of the bracero program: The processed-tomato industry, which was heavily dependent on guest workers and was supposed to be devastated by their absence, learned how to mechanize and became more productive.

And this:
Since 1980, the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line (about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has risen 162 percent. Over the same period, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3 percent and the number of blacks, 9.5 percent.

[...]

The most lunatic notion is that admitting more poor Latino workers would ease the labor market strains of retiring baby boomers. The two simply aren't close substitutes for each other. Among immigrant Mexican and Central American workers in 2004, only 7 percent had a college degree and nearly 60 percent lacked a high-school diploma, says the Congressional Budget Office.

[...]

It's a myth that the U.S. economy ``needs'' more poor immigrants. The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force, reports the Pew Hispanic Center. In no major occupation are they a majority.

Legalize coming here to work and tax them so they pay for their fair share of infrastructure, schools, medical care, etc.

As shown above, we're importing poverty, so even if we made them all citizens tomorrow, they still wouldn't pay taxes.

I live in the midst of fruit and potato country, and I can guaran-fuckin-tee you that they do work that Americans won't do.

You might want to learn a little about free market economics.

Posted by: Jordan at March 29, 2006 10:33 AM (xEXsr)

16 What Canelone said. The problem isn't that americans won't do the jobs, it's that americans won't do the jobs for slave wages.

Of course, once this current batch of illegals are given amnesty, they'll stop working for slave wages as well. But that's okay. There's another batch of illegals already queueing up to take their place.

Wake me up when the shooting starts in earnest, because it's obviouly going to have to get to that point before the problem is taken seriously by enough people to actually get something done.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at March 29, 2006 10:34 AM (JKlMI)

17 There was a story some time ago in California about how the tomato growers had to hire illegals because no one else would take the picking job. Well, that turned out to be true in a way -- people wouldn't take the job, but machines did it quite nicely, and about a third the cost of the supposedly "cheap" illegal labor.

The construction trades are in a similar state. I know several framers and drywall installers who can't get jobs because illegals have driven the wages down so far that it's simply not worth their while any more. That plus corrupt unions puts them in a bind they find very hard to get out of. And you oughta see the crummy quality of the work -- some $300K houses in my neck of the woods are laughably bad: not a plumb angle or even floor in the place, drafts, gaps in the carpet, bad wiring, shitty plumbing, you name it.

Downside: about every other Mexican restaurant in the country will have to close when the illegals (pretty much the entire staff) gets deported.

Posted by: Monty at March 29, 2006 10:37 AM (UdJCa)

18 If they really helped the economy, the border states wouldn't be the ones complaining about illegal immigrants. They'd be helping them come.

The really stupid (or maybe it's genius) thing about the proposal to make them legal is: the minimum wage laws will kick in, and they won't be the super-cheap labor that has made them desirable to businesses. Then what? They all lose their jobs to illegal immigrants who decided to remain "undocumented"?

Hey, woot, couldn't you think of anything to say about the topic?

Posted by: Another Roy at March 29, 2006 10:38 AM (2XXia)

19 Hey, I just found this blog through a link from stormfront.org. It's awesome!

Keep up the good work.

Posted by: w00t at March 29, 2006 10:41 AM (pOhpm)

20 uhh. howe about we fine the fuck out of the employers who use illegal labour?
as to the 'welfare queens' argument....for every true welfare queen there's a single mother who had the father walk out and chose to have the kid instead of an abortion and needs the extra income from welfare and such in order to get through college.

but as people have noted, they're hardworking and in search of work. if the employers faced severe (we're talking fines based upon % of yearly or quarterly gross income here) fines there wouldn't be work for them to look for.

Posted by: pharniel at March 29, 2006 10:44 AM (vPdUl)

21 oh oh, woot is trying to play a neo-nazi troll....

Posted by: This&That at March 29, 2006 10:45 AM (MSMPS)

22 Nobody eats that much fkn fruit to cover the cost.

I love it when someone just cuts right through the bullshit.

Here's the thing: I like immigrants. I particularly like immigrants from South America, as I find them to be honest, hardworking, family oriented, and patriotic. And I certainly can't fault them from coming here, even illegally, to make a better like for themselves and their families. I'd do the same thing.

But I don't live in a border town overrun with illegals who refuse to assimilate, start gangs, sponge off the welfare system.

Immigration is healthy for this country, but it needs to be controlled. This unstoppable tide of immigration has crippled our tax base and Balkanized parts of our country, and we have only ourselves to blame.

In my opinion, two things need to be done. First, we need to wall up the border. Second, we force current immigrants, both legal and illegal, to assimilate. We start by making English the offical language of the United States. We stop printing voting ballots and other government literature in Spanish or any other language. We knock off bilingual education. We stop providing interpreters to anyone unless it's a medical emergency or law enforcement situation.

People are adaptable. If functioning in every day society requires learning English, then they will. The idea isn't to be punitive, but rather provided a rallying point for unity, culture, and national pride.

Posted by: The Warden at March 29, 2006 10:46 AM (8WTw1)

23 oh oh, woot is trying to play a neo-nazi troll....

Posted by This&That


Have people tried that already?

Posted by: w00t at March 29, 2006 10:49 AM (E67z3)

24 You might want to learn a little about free market economics.

That's a strangely ironic way to close a post that completely ignores economics in particular and in its premise. Ignoring for now the larger premise that a higher base wage will only encourage illegals to take greater risks to work here, most of your points simply ignore economic realities.

For instance, to claim illegals can't replace retiring workers is assinine. The claim is that they are uneducated therefore they cannot do the jobs we are retiring from. Think about what you're saying--on one hand Americans will do menial jobs if the money's good and on the other illegals are too stupid to do our smart-guy jobs.

The answer bites you in the ass--they do the menial work and Americans educate themselves to take the high wage jobs for non-morons. We don't need any more Americans doing grunt work. We can import those.

I could go on and on. This issue is so contentious people just forget common sense and preach dogma instead. That's not unusual, but condemning others for lack of econo-wisdom at the same time is grating.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 29, 2006 10:50 AM (uSomN)

25 Pharniel:

"as to the 'welfare queens' argument....for every true welfare queen there's a single mother who had the father walk out and chose to have the kid instead of an abortion and needs the extra income from welfare and such in order to get through college."

- care to show me some proof of this assertion? I very much doubt this is even remotely close to true.

Moreover, who cares? Why can't they be expected to work, even in that situation? Where are there families? Where is there "community." The argument that I need to pay someone an income because they got pregnant with a scumbag as the father, and then they want to go to college, does nothing for me. Also, arguments that it is "for the children" really mean nothing to me. Since when did it become government's responsibility to take care of all the children? Some children are born to bad and poor parents. Such is life. It is not my fault and not my responsibility. I may try to help people in these types of situations - through charity - but I do not want my government taking my money and giving it to them.

Posted by: Vanilla thunder at March 29, 2006 10:53 AM (JFj6P)

26 Ace, not to be a party-pooper, but fencing the Mexican Border is a pretty lame idea. Let me explain. I live about 5 miles from the Border (Rio Grande Valley, TX). We have a natural "fence" here called the Rio Grande River. It is about 30 yards across, and about 20 feet deep in the middle. The embankments are fairly steep and clifflike, and are infested with Prickly Pears and other thorny S. Texas vegetation. The river bank sections that are passable are monitored by sophisticated motion sensors. I sometimes take the highway that follows the river home from work, and usually see 5-10 Border Patrol vehicles patrolling a 15 mile span. They also have boats patroling the river.

Despite all this, the Rio Grande Valley is one of the top crossing sites for illegal aliens. Picture in your mind what kind of fence would be required to stop illegals if the river is not cutting it. Now imagine going on a 700 mile road trip, with that monstrosity on one side of the road, not in a straight line, but snaking about as the rough terain permits. I think it would be a bigger project than the Panama Canal. Bigger than the transnational railroad. Which, by the way, didn't we have to bring in migrant workers from China and Ireland to complete that one?

I am all for stopping illegal immigration, and am against amnesty. I think granting amnesty was the biggest blunder made by the Reagan Administration. It is one of the main reason we are in the crisis we have now.

And as for the dems calling amnesty opponets racist, given our countries tradition of welcoming immigrants, they have no one else but themselves to blame. Remember, when the max exodus from Ireland, Italy, China, etc. came in the 1800's, our country had no income tax, no social security, no free health care, in fact, no entitlements whatsoever. Sure, you could come here and be an American if you wanted to, but you were on your own once you got here. Now that the dems have made us into a welfare state, we just cant afford massive immigration of people that, once citizens, will be on the government dole, which is picked up by our existing citizens.

Posted by: Joel V at March 29, 2006 10:56 AM (F61Sk)

27 We don't need any more Americans doing grunt work. We can import those.

sponge, I love ya, man, but that's just dumb.

You're not importing robots or beasts of burden that can be put down when their useful days are behind them. Low-wage illegals are a drain on the economy to a far greater degree then they add to it. In terms of medical care, welfare assistance, and social costs (slums, crime, etc.), there is a substantial net cost of having illegal aliens here. Our economy gains very little from their effort compared to how much it has to pay out.

Finally, allowing Mexico to use the United States as a handy way of avoiding their own economic and social problems only acts to the detriment of us both. Mexico absolutely must address the deep and systemic problems it has in its economy -- if not, it could very easily spiral into revolution and chaos (which obviously would spill over the border). Bush needs to tell Vincente Fox to get his head out of his ass and start solving his own country's problems; America doesn't exist simply to give Mexico a safety-valve.

Posted by: Monty at March 29, 2006 10:58 AM (UdJCa)

28 The government is here to take care of you allllllll.

Please step forward and and stay in neat lines. The Kool Aid is getting warm in the bright sunshine.

Seriously, Bush needs to own up and give Fox the finger. This what La Raza and other mexican colonists are saying.....

"Europeans have been illegal on this continent since 1492.

We're going to drive you all back to Europe
and never have anything to do with you ever again.

The wealth of our continent will be ours again
and your savage, genocidal, murderous, smallpox-carrying race will
fester in Europe shut out by us.

Get ready for your demographic apocolypse.
Whether it takes 100 years, 200 yrs, or 1,000,
we will drive every one of you off our continent."

That's what is going on and we're not even maing them take it back. We're giving it to them.

Posted by: Pixelflash at March 29, 2006 11:03 AM (O+1/6)

29 Monty, I don't argue with what you're saying, but that's an entirely different issue.If we need to find a way to assess immigrants for the costs of thier freeloading then let's document them and do it. But let's don't pretend we can wish immigrants away and that it won't be inflationary and ultimately foolish to try.

BTW, I don't think you can document the claim they take more than they add. The best guess is they are a wash.

What I'm saying is you can work on the bad things immigrants bring and keep the good. Freeing us up from menial work is good. Like chimigangas and cold Bohemia.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 29, 2006 11:06 AM (uSomN)

30 Think about what you're saying--on one hand Americans will do menial jobs if the money's good and on the other illegals are too stupid to do our smart-guy jobs.

What are you talking about? A job that requires a high school education isn't necessarily what I would call a "smart guy" job.

We don't need any more Americans doing grunt work. We can import those.

Yeah, tell that to the unemployed construction worker. I'm sure he can become an investment banker overnight.

Posted by: Jordan at March 29, 2006 11:12 AM (xEXsr)

31 I'd still like to know why, with all the self-identified illegals protesting in the streets, no arrests were made?

Posted by: Iblis at March 29, 2006 11:15 AM (9221z)

32 Jordan, we've been losing blue-collar jobs for decades. Long before immigration was supposed to be the culprit. Do you really think a higher base wage (your wished-for result from limiting immigration) is going to bring more blue-collar jobs?

This is what I'm talking about arguing a contradiction, but at least you're not busting folks for econo-idiocy still.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 29, 2006 11:19 AM (uSomN)

33 Ignoring for now the larger premise that a higher base wage will only encourage illegals to take greater risks to work here, most of your points simply ignore economic realities.

Hence the need for actual border enforcement.

BTW, I don't think you can document the claim they take more than they add. The best guess is they are a wash.

This speaks for itself:
Since 1980, the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line (about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has risen 162 percent. Over the same period, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3 percent and the number of blacks, 9.5 percent.
And they just don't affect the communities that they live in; they also affect the communities they pass through. The economies of local communities in the San Diego area have notably improved since Operation Gatekeeper began.
See this:
The quality-of-life problems of border communities are not well publicized, and they are not the kind of issue that makes or breaks government policy. But some immigration experts say these problems add another point of view to a national debate that has lately focused on the risks to the illegal immigrants. A General Accounting Office report released in August said that other communities where border enforcement had increased had experienced economic improvement and lower rates of crimes like theft.

And the illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force, reports the Pew Hispanic Center. In no major occupation are they a majority. Somehow, I think we'll manage if they all leave, especially in light of this, as stated previously:

The average "consumer unit" in the U.S. spends $7 a week on fresh fruit and vegetables, less than is spent on alcohol, according to Martin. On a $1 head of lettuce, the farm worker gets about 6 or 7 cents, roughly 1/15th of the retail price. Even a big run-up in the cost of labor can't hit the consumer very hard.

Martin recalls that the end of the bracero guest-worker program in the mid-1960s caused a one-year 40 percent wage increase for the United Farm Workers Union. A similar wage increase for legal farm workers today would work out to about a 10-dollar-a-year increase in the average family's bill for fruit and vegetables. Another thing happened with the end of the bracero program: The processed-tomato industry, which was heavily dependent on guest workers and was supposed to be devastated by their absence, learned how to mechanize and became more productive.

Posted by: Jordan at March 29, 2006 11:25 AM (xEXsr)

34 Jordan, we've been losing blue-collar jobs for decades. Long before immigration was supposed to be the culprit. Do you really think a higher base wage (your wished-for result from limiting immigration) is going to bring more blue-collar jobs?

Yeah, but not all blue-collar jobs can be exported. My house can't be built in India, and my food can't be served or cooked there either.

Posted by: Jordan at March 29, 2006 11:28 AM (xEXsr)

35 The simple truth is that any form of goverment welfare is fundamentally nonsustainable when coupled with an open borders immigration policy, because the system will inevitably be financially overwhelmed in the long term. This, of course, is already happening.

Posted by: piercello at March 29, 2006 11:29 AM (plBen)

36 Joel V., those comments are worth taking note of. As someone above said, nothing will be done until the shooting starts. If we're not prepared to shoot (or more humanely/sensiblly, crucify employers of illegals), we're not prepared to fix the problem.

Posted by: Mark at March 29, 2006 11:31 AM (G6key)

37 It diesn't come close to speaking for itself. Sure they're poor but what does that cost you? And what does it benefit you? Those costs and benefits are too complex to cut-and-paste some poverty figures.

Real border enforcement is pie in the sky--stupid costly and ultimately doomed to failure. Give immigrants a legal way to work and pay these expenses they rack up. Document them. Deny services without the card. Deport those in arrears and those who commit felonies and insurance fraud. And yes, penalize employers.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 29, 2006 11:33 AM (uSomN)

38 Continuing, with the point, since I posted too soon--

So if we can have either open borders or entitlements, but not both, which is more politically feasible to prune? Knocking back both would be great, but is hardly practical at the moment... Keeping both is a policy everyone should be able to reject.

Posted by: piercello at March 29, 2006 11:41 AM (plBen)

39 Americans on the whole love Immigrants, most of us came from Immigrants. We embrace new ideas, new foods, new cultural input, and new peoples. We do so far more than any other nation on earth, because of our history, culture and foundation.

What we don't like is lawbreakers ignoring the rules, we don't like people who use our system and advantages without becoming citizens, we don't care for people who won't learn the language and wave their flag in our nation. We don't care for Mexico spewing it's criminal element north of the border so we have to deal with them and fill our prisons with illegals.

Imagine that.

Posted by: Canelone at March 29, 2006 11:46 AM (1Vbso)

40 I'm so sick of hearing that "americans won't do that type of work bullshit " when I was living in a small new mexico town I worked every damn job that was available. I worked at a tree farm, McDonalds, Burger King... whatever the hell was available, because that was all there was. I was in High School and had to work if I wanted clothes, a car etc... There are a lot of white and black high school graduates with no hope for college, that are in need of those same jobs that the illegals are taking. That line is total BS and I'm sick to death of it. Maybe we as americans should protest, have a million american march demanding our government enforce the damn laws. I'm a mother of two girls and I'm scared to death of what their future will look like. We need to start making as much noise as those protesters did.

Posted by: justme at March 29, 2006 11:49 AM (y/5U+)

41 Build prisons. Put them on little bikes that generate power. They like picking things? Let them pick food that's exported to other states. Two strikes and you're out. Or three if there's a liberal in the office in that state.

Immigrants have a legal way to work. It's called naturalization and going thru the proper channels. This guest worker plan is crap. So is just washing our hands of it.

You want Spanish as the primary language in your school? You want Spanish on all road signs? Then turn away and pretent that there illegality is okay. I'm not a bigot and saying that those things are not alright. I just have a problem with it happeneing here. respect our borders, our language and our culture. None of that is happenign with the illegals in my city.

My wife was hit by one from N.C> who was here illegally. Not only did he not speak English, but he had no insurance (but he had a license). Before the cops got there (to do what I'm not sure), he took off after guessing that my wife called the police. She got his name but the police told here that there were probably 3 hundred Juan Rosario's in our area.

Posted by: Pixelflash at March 29, 2006 11:51 AM (O+1/6)

42 You still have the problem of cheap labor. They will continue to drive wages down. They are so hot and bothered to get licences not for ID but for them to to flood the market for drivers. Then they will write that off as merely another job Americans won't do.

They will never be able to afford the services they require: housing, health, education, etc. We still get stuck with the bill.

Posted by: shawn at March 29, 2006 12:11 PM (uLve2)

43 The requirement to force them to learn english is b.s., too. Already the english language test for people to become citizens is so easy that it is useless.

People want to come here but they don't want to assimulate. These demonstrations with a sea of Mexican flags and the descretion of our own says it all.

Posted by: shawn at March 29, 2006 12:17 PM (uLve2)

44 For those arguing that we need illegals - you're ignoring an obvious point: legal immigration. If we need more workers, we can legally import them.

Uncontrolled illegal immigration is suicidally stupid, from the small case like Pixelflash's wife's accident above, to the huge murder rate among illegals in California, to the bigger case of terrorism. How can we expect to survive 12 million unknown persons among us?

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at March 29, 2006 12:18 PM (gfEuu)

45 I agree with shawn. The key is to remove the problem, not come up with ways to cope.

Why not forgive drunk driving, drug posession, spouse abuse, tax evasion? Where does it stop? They are called illegal for a reason.

This bullshit about driving up costs and shutting down our restaurant workforce has to stop.

Posted by: Pixelflash at March 29, 2006 12:19 PM (O+1/6)

46 It's more a cultural problem than an economic one, really. America's economy is so vast that we could pretty much absorb the whole of Mexico's population if we had to. No, the main problem is that of a permanent (and fairly unassimilated) underclass. Just go to any innter-city L.A. or San Diego school (or Denver, or Dallas, or Houston, or Albuquerque, or....) and you'll see what I mean -- there are lots of kids who don't have a grasp of English, can barely spell much less write, and tend to drop out of school rather than "climb the hill" and assimilate into what they see as "Anglo culture". They end up gravitating into low-wage jobs, or just drifting into gang culture and crime. The only real answer is to assimilate into the parent culture, but this course seems to be verboten in today's liberal-saturated education environment.

Many of these kids (and their parents) have bought into the Raza/Aztlan myth about the Southwest having been Mexican before it was American. That's partially true, but the Southwest was far more Spanish than it ever was Mexican -- Castilian rather than mestizo, in other words. (And of course the Spaniards took it from the Indians, who took it from the earlier Indians, who took it from still-earlier Indians, who took it from the proto-Siberians who came across the Bering Straits. And so on.)

And even when Mexico claimed large parts of what later became the American southwest, they never really ran it. And, contrary to the PC histories you read these days, they weren't all that heartbroken to lose it during the 1848 war. Mexico and Mexican government has been a joke for a long, long time.

However, this myth has raised in many Mexican immigrants a sense of injustice and entitlement; that they are simply getting "payback" for past injustices. Which is nonsense, of course, but it is widely believed nonetheless. In a real way, this echoes the problems Europe is having with their unassimilated Muslim minorities.

Posted by: Monty at March 29, 2006 12:24 PM (UdJCa)

47 How are those "Guest Worker" programs working out in Germany, France and the Netherlands??

Two cultures separate and not equal results in eventual warfare.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at March 29, 2006 12:25 PM (WOQ34)

48 Anybody see the documentary Spellbound? The girl and her family from Texas were great. Unfortunately, the illegal immigrants I meet aren't like that. They tend to have gang tattoos all over them. lol!

Posted by: shawn at March 29, 2006 01:07 PM (uLve2)

49 There absolutely is documentation that illegals cost us far more than they contribute. I've seen the figures. I wish I could remember the source, but it was an official, or quasi-governmental source.

Just now, on my way home from the store, I was about to turn down the street before mine, and there were three Mexican, ah, young men standing on the corner. What they were doing in my neighborhood I don't know. They clearly weren't workers, as they had on all the hip-hop crap.

As I approached the intersection, they looked directly at me, stepped off the curb, and proceeded to walk across the street as slowly as they could.

It's lucky for them it wasn't worth the trouble of gunning the engine.

Posted by: CraigC at March 29, 2006 01:29 PM (r7nqq)

50 All you folks here who are disagreeing with policy supported by the selected not elected Bushitler are hereby commanded to return your heads to their rightful place fully up his ass.

That way you'll be more in line with the stereotype of you that he has so carefully crafted.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Posted by: Mike's Lawyer at March 29, 2006 02:00 PM (jO8/W)

51 Real border enforcement is pie in the sky--stupid costly and ultimately doomed to failure.

Operation Gatekeeper and the Gaza Strip fence say otherwise. Ignoring the problem is stupid and costly. Reagan's amnesty plan worked out real well, for us.

Give immigrants a legal way to work and pay these expenses they rack up.

There already is a legal way: immigrate here without sneaking across the border.

Posted by: Jordan at March 29, 2006 02:36 PM (1XSbK)

52 Monty, I got castillian in 1991.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 29, 2006 02:42 PM (49pnU)

53 NOT having border enforcement is more expensive, and we're just flat doomed if we don't control things better. There's no point having laws if you're just going to ignore them so either we should just shrug and open the borders and ignore immigration law... or enforce our laws. This half of one, 10% of the other is horseshit.

Posted by: Canelone at March 29, 2006 02:48 PM (1Vbso)

54 My position: We are a nation of laws or we aren`t, period, end of story.

However, illegal immigration has many faces. One of the commenters talked about crop harvest and that Mexicans mainly do it. I only have a small view but I have family in Bakersfield, some in agriculture. And it is true there that healthy young highshool boys and girls WILL NOT work the fields (and by the way it is miserable hot out there in the Valley...)

If laws on the books already were enforced; if the govt had a real policy, Americans and legal naturalized citizens would work the fields but at a much greater cost. Industrial Farmers would not like that and would pass the cost to you and I with higher produce costs; but we can live with that.

BUT, so long as ultra-cheap labor illegally stays in the equation then market place capitalism is short-circuited. Read Victor Davis Hanson`s book: MEXIFORNIA and you will get the precise picture. Hanson owns a grape farm south of Fresno and knows, first hand of what he speaks.

Technologically, America has the means and the capacity to build a near-impenetrable border fence. It doesn`t have to be a Wall of China.

Finally, Mexico has zero track record for solving their own problems and aren`t going to be of help.
Illegal immigration is more than an issue of work. Culturally they have destroyed cities, towns and other areas with rampant crime of all flavors and gangs to do it with. We will save a lot more than just money in the long run..........

Mexicans have just given us the catalyst and it is high time to get cracking on this and stop the utopian dialogue bullshit!




















Posted by: Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.) at March 29, 2006 04:46 PM (BJYNn)

55 Those who support illegal immigration support slavery.

Posted by: syn at March 30, 2006 01:53 AM (21Ssw)

56 Those who support illegal immigration support slavery.
Posted by syn at March 30, 2006 06:53 AM


And they support an inhumanely corrupt system in Mexico. Those are the moral issue that rarely get mentioned in this debate.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at March 30, 2006 03:35 AM (v15nJ)

57 I don't understand that argument, AV. And who exactly "supports illegal immigration". At worst, those of us not quite as incensed about the problem would like to see a mechanism in place to make working in this country legal.

And let's stop running from the realities. Not one of the responses here confront the facts: 1) Building this wall will be super expensive and won't do much but raise the cost of entry into this country and 2) the idea of actually rounding up illegals and deporting them is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen barring a virtual police state.

If you want people to respect the law, stop making unenforcable laws.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 30, 2006 03:59 AM (uSomN)

58 There are plenty of posts on this thread that seem to support illegal immigration, including the opinion that we can't stop it, so let it be. I think a wall will work, at least much better than what we currently have.

Illegal immigrants already here are being victimized, and sometimes victimizing, because they are outside the system. I agree that deporting millions of people is unrealistic, so I'm for building the wall and putting people within the system. If we need more workers, or we want to be a release valve for Mexico's poverty, we can up the number of legal immigrants allowed.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at March 30, 2006 04:18 AM (v15nJ)

59 Not supplying them with free healthcare, housing, education, etc., may encourage them to leave. At least we won't be spending billions on them per year. We also don't question the immigration status of those arrested for crimes. That has to stop, too.

Posted by: shawn at March 30, 2006 04:29 AM (uLve2)

60 Then I am in agreement with you, AV, and shawn as well. But I still don't see how anybody's supporting the corrupt Mexican government. That doesn't mean I dispute it but that I cannot make the connection.

We do supply illegals with education and healthcare through the ER's, which is mega-fucked, but I don't want folks who need attention turned away. That's just inhumane. What I want is for them to pay their way which means we need them documented.

If you can agree with that you're pretty much on board with the Bush proposal, which I am.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 30, 2006 04:38 AM (uSomN)

61 I believe that one of the problems those who are agaonst the wall have is that is too simple. It would work in my opinion, but, to them, it just can't be that sumple. There needs to be a more complex, more intellectual, more convoluted solution, so they can find nuanced, intricate ways of either supporting or opposing the plan, depending on which way the political winds blow.

A wall is simple, it is effective and it is pretty much is just plain there. No nuance to it at all and, dammit, it just can't be that simple, can it?

Posted by: wiserbud at March 30, 2006 04:38 AM (AQGeh)

62 And I think those who like the wall idea and keep citing ludicrous examples like the wall they're building in Israel have never been to Texas and have no idea of the magnitude of the project. And all so illegals can dig under it or climb it or get killed riding in a shipping container.

That aside, I wouldn't oppose it myself. Knock yourself out. Let's see how many Americans want to work on that wall for a realistic wage!

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 30, 2006 04:46 AM (uSomN)

63 The wall will stop a huge percentage of the current flow across the border, freeing up resources to address the other items you mention.

Climb it. Yeah, okay, we're talking about something a little more sophisticated than a picket fence. I don't think climbing it will be an issue if it is done right.

And as for those that die in the attempt...ummm.....yeah? so? They take that risk when they decide to enter illegally. I bet that wouldn't happen to them if they followed the legal immigration path.

Hey, it sounds cold-hearted, but that's like feeling bad for the guy that gets stuck and dies in your chimney while he is trying to break into your house. I have very little sympathy for these people.

Posted by: wiserbud at March 30, 2006 05:00 AM (AQGeh)

64 No one is going to be denied life saving care here, but they use the ERs as clinics. I've been told by Mexican Nationals that health care in Mexico is free. So, let them seek treatment there. And, if you were in Mexico and in need of medical care and couldn't pay for it, they would either deny it or put you in an ambulance and deliver you to the border.

And we are supporting a corrupt Mexican government because we fuel their econmy. I forgot how many billions are sent from here to Mexico. It also seems that every time Fox says bend over, we say how low.

Posted by: shawn at March 30, 2006 05:10 AM (uLve2)

65 No shit?

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 30, 2006 05:10 AM (uSomN)

66 It would also save lives if the Mexican government didn't encourage people to cross the border illegally.

Posted by: shawn at March 30, 2006 05:12 AM (uLve2)

67 No shit?


About free treatment? That's what I've been told. And I checked some Mex. gov. websites and they were claiming that, too. But, I have a hard time believing it, too.

If you are asking about how Americans would be treated -- do you remember when some basketball player and his girlfriend disappeared off a yacht? Turns out the brother did it. He tried to kill himself, ended up in a coma, no one knew who he was. But, because he was tall, black, and in good health (except for being brain dead), they decided he was American and dumped him at the border. They sure weren't going to provide free life saving health care.

Posted by: shawn at March 30, 2006 05:19 AM (uLve2)

68 I wonder if Cynthia McKinney even remembers that two Capitol Police officers were killed in 1998 protecting her peers and the public?

I doubt it. I doubt that she would care.

I'm quite certain she has no clue that in 1954, 4 Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire on the House of Representatives with semi-automatic pistols, firing thirty shots and wounding 5 congressmen.

She probably would say "pffft. white men".

Was that unkind of me?

Bet she doesn't know Jimmy Carter released those Puerto Ricans from prison in 1979. IMHO the most despicable thing he ever did in office and let me tell you, that isn't an easy pick.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 30, 2006 05:23 AM (pzen5)

69 spongeworthy: They are a flood of cheap labor that drive down wages for American citizens. And the jobs the perform do not enable them to pay their way. Do you think all these minimum wage agriculture jobs are going to provide free health insurance or any health insurance at all? We will still be stuck with the bill. Do you think all these guest workers are going to stop procreating and producing anchor babies?

Posted by: shawn at March 30, 2006 05:25 AM (uLve2)

70 Cynthia McKinney

In the Doo- Da parade, they had a Zha-Zha marching team . A person dressed like a fat floosy blonde would march along side a cop, she would turn and slap him, and he would backhand her severl times hard. The crowd loved it!

Posted by: shawn at March 30, 2006 05:30 AM (uLve2)

71 oh, and those Congressmen in 1954?

they were debating an immigration bill.

yeah, let that sink in for a minute.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 30, 2006 05:33 AM (pzen5)

72 Bet she doesn't know Jimmy Carter released those Puerto Ricans from prison in 1979

I would be willing to bet that you have just scratched the surface on the topic of "things that Ms. McKinney either doesn't know or doesn't want to know."

Posted by: at March 30, 2006 05:37 AM (AQGeh)

73 Shawn, I ackowledge all those problems. When you argue your side of this, stop pointing to problems that current bills you oppose are designed to remedy.

There's no doubt that immigrants cost us money, but do you think your fence is free? How about those mass roundups--tyranny's expensive!

What makes sense is to get some papers on these guys so they cannot default on their bills. Then simply garnish their wages. This problem can be fixed.

Please stop arguing the status quo is a problem when that is universally acknowledged. Focus on what is wrong with the suggested remedy to the problems. What exactly do you oppose about a mechanism that will not permit these deadbeats to stick us with their bills?

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 30, 2006 05:44 AM (uSomN)

74 "And they support an inhumanely corrupt system in Mexico. Those are the moral issue that rarely get mentioned in this debate."

That's because the debate is typically formed in the context of political gain rather than law and morality.

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 05:51 AM (1Vbso)

75 spongeworthy:

But they are not designed to remedy it. What they pay these illegal immigrants do not cover the services they require. Their wages are too low because they have been allowed to flood the labor market. You want solutions? Stop corporate welfare. These corporations are making us subsidize their workers. Pay more and hirer Americans. Do not offer housing subsidies or allow them to attend US schools for free. Shit, they even give illegal instate discounts at colleges. Deport them when they are arrested for crimes. Stop this don't ask/don't tell bullshit. Discourage those from coming here and encourage those here to leave. You do this by not subsidizing them. Giving them papers will not ensure they pay their own way. That is a joke.

And I think a fence is going to be a lot cheaper than the over $1400 a year plus it costs me in state taxes alone for the services provided to illegal immigrants. This is a gross underestimate by the way. It does not take in consideration the deteriation of the infrastructure and the lost of peace of mind due to crime or what the federal taxes cover. There is also the cost of my skyrocketing health premiums and the cost of possibly not being close to an ER because they have been closed. And even if I'm insured, if I show up in an ER and need a specialist, e.g., and orthopedic surgeon, there may not be one on call because they are tired of not being paid and refuse to be on call to ERs.

You and Bush are arguing the status quo. It's the same b.s. they sold us in the 80s. They promise to enforce the laws and they never do. So, don't tell me the solution is to enact new laws no one has any intention of enforcing.

Posted by: shawn at March 30, 2006 06:16 AM (uLve2)

76 Giving them papers will not ensure they pay their own way. That is a joke.

This may be your belief but it is a long way from being a fact. If the marshals can track you and me down, they can sure track down one of the many Pedros and get the money out of them. If they don't have the money they need to go home, as it appears you already believe.

I agree we don't need any new laws we aren't going to enforce. But once you admit we lack the will to enforce such laws, doesn't it appear obvious the laws you want enforced aren't going to be either?

A lot of arguments you folks make are colored with wishful thinking and complaints, not reason. I'm fine with bitching about a very real problem, but now is solution time.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 30, 2006 06:48 AM (uSomN)

77 Hey, Maybe the real american's," ( legal one's),"should hold a hudge protest, then maybe the bone heads in washington will do something about it like, keep them out with deadly force. We vote these people in to office.. let them know that they can voted out like any other person...

Posted by: Mike True at March 30, 2006 07:14 AM (6GOFY)

78 Marshalls can track people down, but they are not flawless in their record, despite TV and hollywood. Radicals from the 1970s hid for decades in various places and were never found, in our own country. This is a big place, its easy to hide.

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 07:19 AM (1Vbso)

79 This may be your belief but it is a long way from being a fact.

You are entirely missing the point. The powers that be want cheap labor. Cheap labor does not pay enough to cover their housing, education for their children, and health care. It will have to be either paid for or subdidized by taxpayers. Business sure as hell isn't going to pay for it.

I heard Howard Fineman comment that their are alot of tourists in DC and a number of them are naturalized citizens. All of the ones he has spoken to take a much harder line on immigration then either party.

Posted by: shawn at March 30, 2006 07:21 AM (uLve2)

80 The guest worker program is a fraud. It's just engineered to keep the costs of business down at a time when the least outsourceable sector of the job pool are those jobs which require physical labor.

Whenever someone goes on about jobs that "Americans won't do"... they are talking about services that employers won't pay a good wage for. If they paid a realistic wage for this work, it would help people actually get off welfare. Instead we have a whole bunch of employed people who also take food stamps, medicaid, and other forms of care. The guest worker program basically tells these people that their work isn't worth that much and that they should stay on welfare.

We should just enforce our laws. Fine employers who refuse to hire legal workers. And then, if they can't find someone to do the job for minimum wage, they can raise the pay until they can find someone to do the job.

It's capitalism.

I can't believe we are even considering this at a time when families are losing good paying industrial jobs. Politicians go on and on about how we have to close American factories because the market says so. Why shouldn't the American people benefit from the SAME logic? It's a two-way street.

Can't afford to spend 10 bucks an hour to have someone clean your house... then do it yourself. The work will get done if employers follow supply and demand.

Posted by: BigTobacco at March 30, 2006 09:03 AM (1WdUw)

81 Nobody has mentioned the obvious. We don't need to deport them to get them to leave; if they can't get a job, they'll leave. Enforce employment laws and deny them social services and they'll leave.

And for those who support this amnesty crap: do you not remember Reagan's amnesty? How well did that work out, considering that we now have more illegals than ever?

And all so illegals can dig under it or climb it or get killed riding in a shipping container.

The point is that if it's built correctly (like Israel's wall) it will greatly reduce the flow of illegals. Sure some might get across, but not the 1 million per year that do now. And if they die trying to come here illegally, then it's their fault; they had a legal means, and they decided to break the law instead. Tough.

You are entirely missing the point. The powers that be want cheap labor. Cheap labor does not pay enough to cover their housing, education for their children, and health care. It will have to be either paid for or subdidized by taxpayers. Business sure as hell isn't going to pay for it.

I second that.

Posted by: Jordan at March 30, 2006 09:38 AM (pLJN7)

82 Is anyone else tired of the "it wont work 100% to stop the problem so we shouldn't do it" argument?

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 02:05 PM (1Vbso)

83 online directory main

Posted by: jvjvxy8@altavista.com at April 27, 2006 05:30 AM (/BK4F)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
137kb generated in CPU 0.12, elapsed 1.1563 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0816 seconds, 319 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.