Quote from: reason10 on March 27, 2015, 06:57:07 AM
I'd say that makes a great case for voting those politicians out of office. That is, if this issue is important enough.

Yeah, we can sit back because we're afraid of the left wing media calling us heartless and mean spirited. And we can watch a criminal president bring in children, all carrying diseases. We can sit back and watch mayors openly defy the law and declare their towns "sanctuary cities." Or we can speak up.

Somehow, I get the impression that when Senator Cruz makes the case for enforcing immigration laws currently on the books, he's going to be a lone voice in the wilderness.

Fact is, he's the voice of the base.

Quote from: tac on February 16, 2015, 05:03:49 AM
All 2016 GOP Contenders Support 'Amnesty'

JAMIE WEINSTEIN

Anyone who has ever used the term "Shamnesty" — or, more likely, "SHAMNESTY!!!!" — is going to hate the likely 2016 GOP presidential field. All of it.
...
Of course, most GOP contenders who support an ultimate pathway to citizenship, or at least a process of normalization, condition their support on things like further securing America's Southern border and making illegal immigrants pay a financial penalty. But nearly all support the general principle: most of the 11 million illegal immigrants who violated America's laws in making their way into the country should be allowed to stay and work in the country so long as they haven't committed any further crimes.

---

I'm not really surprised.

Then ALL of the GOP candidates, like those from the dimwits, are unsuitable to serve as the POTUS. Time to find someone else from among our people to put there instead.

Nothing, was ever written that says we MUST choose either a dimwit or Repubican. I am not sure, (since only a few folks have even announced yet) who it will be that is running. BUT if that's the only choice we are presented with by these two parties. Then I say it's time TEA lets the RNC die as a viable political party, by walking away from the RNC altogether. As for the dimwits, they're already in the dog house as it were politically thanks to their own actions.

It seems to me that the issue is becoming fuzzy and many are equating amnesty and "path to citizenship". They are two totally different concepts. I have no problem with a path to citizenship, but it would have many requirements. We have to be careful not to let the MSM define what a  GOP candidate supports with these two issues.

Quote from: supsalemgr on March 28, 2015, 05:35:10 AM
It seems to me that the issue is becoming fuzzy and many are equating amnesty and "path to citizenship". They are two totally different concepts. I have no problem with a path to citizenship, but it would have many requirements. We have to be careful not to let the MSM define what a  GOP candidate supports with these two issues.

We already have a path to citizenship, we don't need another one that circumvents the law. Anything that the politicians introduce that does that is amnesty.

Quote from: supsalemgr on March 28, 2015, 05:35:10 AM
It seems to me that the issue is becoming fuzzy and many are equating amnesty and "path to citizenship". They are two totally different concepts. I have no problem with a path to citizenship, but it would have many requirements. We have to be careful not to let the MSM define what a  GOP candidate supports with these two issues.

Yep, it's when they tried to seize the narrative of "we need to fix immigration law".
What, it's broken, when did that happen, who broke it?
The rino establishment aligned with the leftists and tried to claim the law was to blame for the illegal problem, not the huge gaping hole in the border with the welcome sign over it.

They really thought we were that stupid.
TEA

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2015, 06:14:22 AM
Yep, it's when they tried to seize the narrative of "we need to fix immigration law".
What, it's broken, when did that happen, who broke it?
The rino establishment aligned with the leftists and tried to claim the law was to blame for the illegal problem, not the huge gaping hole in the border with the welcome sign over it.

They really thought we were that stupid.
TEA

OTOH, maybe We, the People need to offer a definition of what is wrong with the immigration system that results in ten times as many choosing to bypass it as actually go through the system. And in doing so, maybe we can also define the proper solution set.

Why do the People sit around waiting for the PTBs to define our problems, thereby limiting possible solutions to what the PTBs want?

Quote from: zewazir on March 28, 2015, 09:29:18 AM
OTOH, maybe We, the People need to offer a definition of what is wrong with the immigration system that results in ten times as many choosing to bypass it as actually go through the system. And in doing so, maybe we can also define the proper solution set.

Why do the People sit around waiting for the PTBs to define our problems, thereby limiting possible solutions to what the PTBs want?

That's the point. There is nothing wrong with the law, aside from the fact our so called Reps refuse to enforce the law they swore to uphold.

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2015, 09:51:58 AM
That's the point. There is nothing wrong with the law, aside from the fact our so called Reps refuse to enforce the law they swore to uphold.

I disagree. If there were nothing wrong with the law, there would not be so many supporting the idea of breaking it. If there were nothing wrong with the law, there would not be so many business owners putting law breakers to work, which in breaking the law themselves encourages more and more to break the law.

While there will always be that criminal element who breaks the law simply because it is more convenient and/or profitable to break a law than follow it, no well designed and balanced law will result in a large faction which supports those who choose to break it.

Of course, immigration law, by itself, just may not be what is causing the system to be so out of balance. The situation is far more complex than simply shutting down our borders. And while controlling the borders is very much in our national interests, there would remain the unaddressed problem of why illegal immigration is a problem in the first place. (ie: it's NOT just about the immigrants themselves - but also those who desire and use the cheap labor the immigrants bring.)

Quote from: zewazir on March 28, 2015, 12:31:04 PM
I disagree. If there were nothing wrong with the law, there would not be so many supporting the idea of breaking it. If there were nothing wrong with the law, there would not be so many business owners putting law breakers to work, which in breaking the law themselves encourages more and more to break the law.

While there will always be that criminal element who breaks the law simply because it is more convenient and/or profitable to break a law than follow it, no well designed and balanced law will result in a large faction which supports those who choose to break it.

Of course, immigration law, by itself, just may not be what is causing the system to be so out of balance. The situation is far more complex than simply shutting down our borders. And while controlling the borders is very much in our national interests, there would remain the unaddressed problem of why illegal immigration is a problem in the first place. (ie: it's NOT just about the immigrants themselves - but also those who desire and use the cheap labor the immigrants bring.)

Absolutely disagree!
The law has worked well for decades, in fact back in the 40s when a huge portion of the male labor force went off to war and business needed to fill the gap, the Bracero program was instituted, where desperate  Mexican laborers were encouraged to come and work the fields and return home for the winter..

This worked well up until the 60s when Cesar Chavez started the farm laborers Union, which made crossing the border all the more attractive.
Then in the 70s, the Dims in Ca guilted the GOP rino into allowing Mexicans to have free delivery of babies in hospitals, creating an anchor baby problem.

All the while ignoring the laws regarding qualifications for citizenship. Now we have both party's vying for this unskilled labor force willing to work for low pay, no advancement to suit their crony backers.
Both party's are not enforcing the laws on the books, in fact they are encouraging illegals to enter with benefits not even afforded our own people.

If you were in Washington, why wouldn't you favor immigrating millions of illiterate and semi literate from Third World dictatorships, now an estimated 30% of the American population?
Easily deceived, easily manipulated, cheaper to own and operate, the benefits are many.

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2015, 12:48:30 PM
Absolutely disagree!
The law has worked well for decades, in fact back in the 40s when a huge portion of the male labor force went off to war and business needed to fill the gap, the Bracero program was instituted, where desperate  Mexican laborers were encouraged to come and work the fields and return home for the winter..

This worked well up until the 60s when Cesar Chavez started the farm laborers Union, which made crossing the border all the more attractive.
Then in the 70s, the Dims in Ca guilted the GOP rino into allowing Mexicans to have free delivery of babies in hospitals, creating an anchor baby problem.

All the while ignoring the laws regarding qualifications for citizenship. Now we have both party's vying for this unskilled labor force willing to work for low pay, no advancement to suit their crony backers.
Both party's are not enforcing the laws on the books, in fact they are encouraging illegals to enter with benefits not even afforded our own people.

But WHY did they begin ignoring the laws regarding qualifications for citizenship?  WHY did they start bypassing the laws regarding qualification for work visas? Just because? The laws worked IN THE PAST. But things changed, and the system of laws obviously no longer work.

No, the reason immigration laws started being ignored is because they were not adequate to the needs of those involved - on BOTH sides of the border. IF legal immigrants with valid work visas were plentiful enough to fill the labor needs, then why start hiring illegals?

I'll state again: immigration law BY ITSELF is probably not the sole cause of the imbalance which makes it economically desirable to hire illegal immigrants. And I'll state this again: IF the law were working well, there would BE NO PROBLEM.

No law lives in a vacuum. They all play together, for good or for bad. If the laws play well together, then the People thrive, including immigrants. When laws do NOT play well together, then an imbalance develops and problems spin off the imbalance like tornadoes out of a super cell.

Calling for the enforcement of immigration laws sounds good, considering they are not currently being enforced, even less so with the MF in charge. But a system of laws which result in an imbalance can NOT be properly enforced, as the imbalance WILL show up in one form or another. When the system encourages violation of the laws, enforcement becomes impractical. No wall in the world will keep illegals out if they still benefit more from breaking the law than from observing it. Just ask the former East Germans.

I agree that we need to start enforcing immigration law. However, unless we also address the imbalances within the system of immigration: labor, welfare, etc.; those imbalances which create the economic environment in which it is more advantageous to break the law than observe it, we will find enforcement to be an exercise in futility.

As an example in what I am proposing, the feds need to pass a law making it illegal for state agencies to use federal dollars to support illegal immigrants. The feds cannot constitutionally tell the states what to do with their own welfare funds, nor can the feds constitutionally prohibit states from issuing illegal immigrants valid driver licenses, or many of the other items certain states are doing to deliberately create this problem. But laws do need to be changed, or the factors which entice breaking immigration laws will simply continue to do so, making enforcement of those laws expensive, and ineffective.

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2015, 09:51:58 AM
That's the point. There is nothing wrong with the law, aside from the fact our so called Reps refuse to enforce the law they swore to uphold.

I don't see any other way that we can have legal immigration.  Bear in mind people, there is a particular sort of the citizenry that exists only to break laws and traditions.  Why?  I don't have a clue but this is why no new "path to citizenship" will work.  The first laws were broken because they didn't cater to this bunch of folks, they weren't inclusive enough.  Why is it that the same laws that we try to keep are always broken by a bunch that can't conform?  Then, instead of censuring or fining or even punishing these lawbreakers, there is put in place laws that they might conform to or they might not.  In the latter case, more laws have to be made and so on goes the drama of always having to cater to whatever a certain crowd wants.  What is good for the majority ought to be mandatory for the minority-period. 

Quote from: zewazir on March 28, 2015, 09:00:33 PM
But WHY did they begin ignoring the laws regarding qualifications for citizenship?  WHY did they start bypassing the laws regarding qualification for work visas? Just because? The laws worked IN THE PAST. But things changed, and the system of laws obviously no longer work.

I can't help but think we have a disconnect here between us, but I'll see if can make sense of this.
The carrot and the stick re: immigration, except both party's threw out the stick and are now offering a buffet. That's it in a nutshell.

QuoteNo, the reason immigration laws started being ignored is because they were not adequate to the needs of those involved - on BOTH sides of the border. IF legal immigrants with valid work visas were plentiful enough to fill the labor needs, then why start hiring illegals?

No, it's two fold. One, their country sucks to live in, and two, our Marxist sent teams to other S/A countries to recruit parents to send their children as anchor babies.
And you don't see this as a problem?

QuoteI'll state again: immigration law BY ITSELF is probably not the sole cause of the imbalance which makes it economically desirable to hire illegal immigrants. And I'll state this again: IF the law were working well, there would BE NO PROBLEM.

Not only is it not part of the equation, its nonexistent as a tool.

QuoteNo law lives in a vacuum. They all play together, for good or for bad. If the laws play well together, then the People thrive, including immigrants. When laws do NOT play well together, then an imbalance develops and problems spin off the imbalance like tornadoes out of a super cell.

You don't seem to realize, the majority of these people are considered undesirables under the law, which is why the Bracero program was instituted, as a favor to business.
Before that, they'd never have made it to the US. Other nations have immigration laws that keep out the poor uneducated, why should we be any different?

QuoteCalling for the enforcement of immigration laws sounds good, considering they are not currently being enforced, even less so with the MF in charge. But a system of laws which result in an imbalance can NOT be properly enforced, as the imbalance WILL show up in one form or another. When the system encourages violation of the laws, enforcement becomes impractical. No wall in the world will keep illegals out if they still benefit more from breaking the law than from observing it. Just ask the former East Germans.

Which was my point about the carrot and the stick, we're all carrot at the moment, when we need to be all stick.
They should all be sent packing and told to get in line.

QuoteI agree that we need to start enforcing immigration law. However, unless we also address the imbalances within the system of immigration: labor, welfare, etc.; those imbalances which create the economic environment in which it is more advantageous to break the law than observe it, we will find enforcement to be an exercise in futility.

And who created these imbalances? They should be punished, it's that simple.
Business should be fined for hiring them, Pols are already being kicked out of office for proposing a so called "Immigration Fix", so we're nearing a solution.

QuoteAs an example in what I am proposing, the feds need to pass a law making it illegal for state agencies to use federal dollars to support illegal immigrants. The feds cannot constitutionally tell the states what to do with their own welfare funds, nor can the feds constitutionally prohibit states from issuing illegal immigrants valid driver licenses, or many of the other items certain states are doing to deliberately create this problem. But laws do need to be changed, or the factors which entice breaking immigration laws will simply continue to do so, making enforcement of those laws expensive, and ineffective.

Your solution is akin to punishing parents for when a pedophile moves next door to their children school.

I watched the 9/11 hearings, and it was obvious to me that our immigration system is lacking.  In many cases it's archaic and there is wonder we had terrorists living and plotting in this country.  There are no good integrated systems for all the agencies that deal with foreigners. Some aren't even on computer.  Not unlike the mess we see in the VA. 

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2015, 07:36:05 AM
I can't help but think we have a disconnect here between us, but I'll see if can make sense of this.
The carrot and the stick re: immigration, except both party's threw out the stick and are now offering a buffet. That's it in a nutshell.

As in they changed the laws. The law regarding who gets a green card are still there, but the laws regarding what we do to those who don't get a green card HAVE changed. Therefore, the system IS broken. As such, the system needs to be fixed.

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2015, 07:36:05 AM
No, it's two fold. One, their country sucks to live in, and two, our Marxist sent teams to other S/A countries to recruit parents to send their children as anchor babies.
And you don't see this as a problem?

Of course it's a problem, and this aspect simply reinforces my stance that the system of laws IS broken. Here we are talking about the definition of citizen, which is written into the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, (And another example of unintended consequences....) and its effect on immigration. Gonna be very hard to constitutionally enforce laws which exclude anchor babies.

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2015, 07:36:05 AM
Not only is it not part of the equation, its nonexistent as a tool.

I suggest you read the actual code involved. There have been a significant number of modifications to the laws of the 40s, 50s, and 60s you refer to as "unbroken". Previous admins BROKE the law by changing it. Again: the system of laws IS BROKEN.  Simply "enforcing" will not work unless we also fix what is causing so many to break the law.

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2015, 07:36:05 AM
You don't seem to realize, the majority of these people are considered undesirables under the law, which is why the Bracero program was instituted, as a favor to business.
Before that, they'd never have made it to the US. Other nations have immigration laws that keep out the poor uneducated, why should we be any different?

Again, you bring up a point which simply supports my claim that the system of laws is not working.

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2015, 07:36:05 AM
Which was my point about the carrot and the stick, we're all carrot at the moment, when we need to be all stick.
They should all be sent packing and told to get in line.

Agreed. But we will be in the position of doing so to millions of people annually until the other parts of the law are fixed. We must, to continue with your analogy, reduce the number of carrots in the system of laws. We also need to increase the number of sticks in the system of laws, to include items like fines and other penalties harsh enough to make employers think twice about skirting the laws against employing illegal immigrants. But, again, that involves changing (ie: FIXING) problems with the system of laws.

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2015, 07:36:05 AM
And who created these imbalances? They should be punished, it's that simple.
Business should be fined for hiring them, Pols are already being kicked out of office for proposing a so called "Immigration Fix", so we're nearing a solution.

Again, agreed. But the current law does not provide for any significant penalties. Therefore, the law needs to be changed. (FIXED.)

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2015, 07:36:05 AM
Your solution is akin to punishing parents for when a pedophile moves next door to their children school.

Huh? So telling states they cannot use federal welfare to benefit illegal immigrants is "punishing the parents"?  How is that a "punishment" at all (except to the illegals who are currently living off our tax dollars?) You DON'T think we should remove welfare from illegals?

The rest of that P was simply acknowledging that not much can be done from the federal level when it comes to states like Commiefornia welcoming illegals by the droves and rewarding their criminal activity with welfare and drivers licenses. (and voter registration?) In short, some fixes will need to take place at the state level, which makes fixing the system that much more difficult because we'll be fighting the uber liberal states.