All 2016 GOP Contenders Support 'Amnesty' (http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/15/by-standards-of-immigration-hawks-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.
Quote from: tac on February 16, 2015, 05:03:49 AM
All 2016 GOP Contenders Support 'Amnesty' (http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/15/by-standards-of-immigration-hawks-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.
Wrong!!!
QuoteScott Walker does not support amnesty
the smear campaign continues
Walker does NOT support amnesty unless you are defining amnesty in a completely extreme way. HotAir.com clarified the issue with him in an interview:
Towards the end of the interview, Bannon noted that "Amnesty is about the sovereignty of the country." But, he asked Walker, "the Washington Post said earlier that you're pro-pathway to citizenship."
"See now that's where they take it out of context," Walker said in response. "I've not said there should be amnesty in this country. I don't believe that. I don't support the legislation being kicked around. What I've said repeatedly is we need to fix the immigration system, but fix the legal system. So if people want to come in this country we should have a legal immigration system."
Bannon then interjected: "And take care of the borders and everything we have to do first."
Walker concurred, saying that any immigration reform efforts should "fix the front door."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/19/Exclusive-Gov-Scott-Walker-I-don-t-support-amnesty-or-pathway-to-citizenship-mainstream-took-me-out-of-context (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/19/Exclusive-Gov-Scott-Walker-I-don-t-support-amnesty-or-pathway-to-citizenship-mainstream-took-me-out-of-context)
http://www.redstate.com/diary/cheesycon/2014/02/21/scott-walker-support-amnesty/ (http://www.redstate.com/diary/cheesycon/2014/02/21/scott-walker-support-amnesty/)
Yeah... I caught that about Walker. The quote in the article about him supposedly being in favor of amnesty was rather weak, and it came from an anonymous member of the governor's staff or campaign team or something like that - not from Walker himself.
That unnamed source was probably a RINO or Democrat plant!
Quote from: Darth Fife on February 16, 2015, 10:37:37 AM
Yeah... I caught that about Walker. The quote in the article about him supposedly being in favor of amnesty was rather weak, and it came from an anonymous member of the governor's staff or campaign team or something like that - not from Walker himself.
That unnamed source was probably a RINO or Democrat plant!
Actually the part Quoted as his came from the interviewer!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
QuoteScott Walker does not support amnesty
the smear campaign continues
Walker does NOT support amnesty unless you are defining amnesty in a completely extreme way. HotAir.com clarified the issue with him in an interview:
Towards the end of the interview, Bannon noted that "Amnesty is about the sovereignty of the country." But, he asked Walker, "the Washington Post said earlier that you're pro-pathway to citizenship."
"See now that's where they take it out of context," Walker said in response. "I've not said there should be amnesty in this country. I don't believe that. I don't support the legislation being kicked around. What I've said repeatedly is we need to fix the immigration system, but fix the legal system. So if people want to come in this country we should have a legal immigration system."
Bannon then interjected: "And take care of the borders and everything we have to do first."
Walker concurred, saying that any immigration reform efforts should "fix the front door."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/19/Exclusive-Gov-Scott-Walker-I-don-t-support-amnesty-or-pathway-to-citizenship-mainstream-took-me-out-of-context (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/19/Exclusive-Gov-Scott-Walker-I-don-t-support-amnesty-or-pathway-to-citizenship-mainstream-took-me-out-of-context)
Now you know this will piss Vinny off right?
I see Walker has put his foot down on March 26, 2015.
snip~
Where does Scott Walker stand on the thorny subjects of immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship?
Well, it's increasingly difficult to tell -- especially after the Wall Street Journal today reported that, according to three people present, he told a March 13 private dinner of New Hampshire Republicans that he favored a way for undocumented immigrants to obtain citizenship.
snip~
March 26, 2015: Now the Walker campaign is denying the Wall Street Journal piece. "We strongly dispute this account," Walker spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said in a statement. "Governor Walker has been very clear that he does not support amnesty and believes that border security must be established and the rule of law must be followed. His position has not changed, he does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this story is false."
more @
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/walker-position-immigration-becomes-increasingly-unclear-n330736 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/walker-position-immigration-becomes-increasingly-unclear-n330736)
Quote from: walkstall on March 26, 2015, 08:02:48 PM
I see Walker has put his foot down on March 26, 2015.
snip~
Where does Scott Walker stand on the thorny subjects of immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship?
Well, it's increasingly difficult to tell -- especially after the Wall Street Journal today reported that, according to three people present, he told a March 13 private dinner of New Hampshire Republicans that he favored a way for undocumented immigrants to obtain citizenship.
snip~
March 26, 2015: Now the Walker campaign is denying the Wall Street Journal piece. "We strongly dispute this account," Walker spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said in a statement. "Governor Walker has been very clear that he does not support amnesty and believes that border security must be established and the rule of law must be followed. His position has not changed, he does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this story is false."
more @
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/walker-position-immigration-becomes-increasingly-unclear-n330736 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/walker-position-immigration-becomes-increasingly-unclear-n330736)
Just like with Cruz The RINO establishment will go out of their way to discredit this man! :mad:
Quote from: tac on February 16, 2015, 05:03:49 AM
All 2016 GOP Contenders Support 'Amnesty' (http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/15/by-standards-of-immigration-hawks-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.
I see no problem with a path to citizenship. It already exists. It's called IMMIGRATION LAW. Those in this country illegal should have a path to citizenship. They just need to GET THE HELL OUT and get in the back of the line, behind those who followed our laws.
Quote from: reason10 on March 27, 2015, 05:45:11 AM
I see no problem with a path to citizenship. It already exists. It's called IMMIGRATION LAW. Those in this country illegal should have a path to citizenship. They just need to GET THE HELL OUT and get in the back of the line, behind those who followed our laws.
Unfortunately the politicians don't agree.
Quote from: tac on March 27, 2015, 05:55:33 AM
Unfortunately the politicians don't agree.
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.
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.
Preaching to the choir on that. Unfortunately those voters that like all the 'free' stuff will never cut off the hand that feeds them, be they democrat or republican. I rather doubt that any conservative candidate that runs on that agenda would be fortunate to be elected dog catcher. Both parties rely heavily on those people for their power, and they will never do anything to upset their apple cart. The few that are fortunate enough to be elected to CONgress on the 'reform' platform are quickly swallowed up by the establishment in D.C., and never see the light of day until they change.
Our immigration is mess and needs fixed. As far as that 11 million number goes, that's the same number they used after 9/11. I bet there are 30 million or more here. Just the numbers alone are a major problem and we probably don't even have enough people to process them all. I think whatever changes are made, has to be done in steps, not some insane idea about "comprehensive" reform.
First we should start with closing the border and returning all new arrivals.
Second we should round up any here that have committed crimes and deport them immediately or lock them up. One problem with this, is a lot of the countries they came from won't take them back.
We should also deal with those countries. Put some kind of sanctions on them when their people come here illegally in the first place.
Third, stop giving anchor babies citizenship. If their parents came here illegally the kids should be considered illegal too.
Fourth, tackle the huge problem of people here who have overstayed their visas. We don't even know where most of these people are. If they are still here or if they have in fact left.
I mentioned before where a lot of them come here on student visas, and we don't even know if they showed up at the schools where they were supposed to attend or if they dropped out. Same with work visas.
Fifth, better employer responsibility. There should be very clear laws regarding required documentation and reporting. We have the I-9 forms, but a lot of that documentation can be counterfeited and I seriously doubt most of those forms are ever audited. The Feds, and the States have no problem auditing where tax laws are concerned, or even something like workmens' comp insurance.
Sixth, these amnesty states need to adhere to federal immigration laws, and if they don't, there needs to be some kind of retribution or recourse.
^All of these would take years to refine and implement. Then there is still the problem of all the one's that are here, living under the radar.
Excellent points Dori, however I do not expect any of them to ever be implemented. These people are potential voters that both parties are courting in their effort to maintain their strangle hold on the American people. They will never do anything to upset that apple cart. It's only going to get worse, not better. Until the American finally become fed up with supporting these invaders and revolt.
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.
I don't think so. The newly elected conservatives will support him, along with the entire country.
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.
Who? Are they still around?
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' (http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/15/by-standards-of-immigration-hawks-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.
Quote from: zewazir on March 29, 2015, 04:07:09 PM
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.
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.
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.
Again, you bring up a point which simply supports my claim that the system of laws is not working.
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.
Again, agreed. But the current law does not provide for any significant penalties. Therefore, the law needs to be changed. (FIXED.)
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.
I knew something was screwy. We're actually both on the same page essentially.
I thought you were falling into the Establishments narrative "We Need Immigration Reform", granted, we can all agree it's broken on every level, but what Conservatives see as a fix, and what the Marxists and rino Establishment mean as reform are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
Honestly, we just need to close the border, kick out all the crony capitalists, reverse all laws on immigration going back 70 years and start from there.
This includes Cruz?
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2015, 04:51:07 PM
I knew something was screwy. We're actually both on the same page essentially.
I thought you were falling into the Establishments narrative "We Need Immigration Reform", granted, we can all agree it's broken on every level, but what Conservatives see as a fix, and what the Marxists and rino Establishment mean as reform are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
Honestly, we just need to close the border, kick out all the crony capitalists, reverse all laws on immigration going back 70 years and start from there.
Well, IMO the issue is too complex to simply go back to the laws from 1945. If nothing else, technology in agriculture has significantly changed that picture, and many 1945 laws flat out won't fit.
And it also concerns me that many conservatives think shipping 11 million illegals back home will accomplish anything for very long when the economic environment continues to invite them right back in, even with strict border control. As I said in a previous post, no border can be closed completely when people are properly motivated to cross it. Look at what East Germany did to keep their people in, and still had several thousand crossings a year from a much smaller population using a much smaller border. Add to that the fact that we could never get away with the outright inhumane methods used by East Germany, and I think you can see what I mean.
It is that aspect of the issue I am trying to address. Until we change the laws so they quit encouraging people on both sides of the border to break immigration law, and replace them with laws that encourage using the legal immigration system, then deporting illegals will end up being an extremely expensive, and rather ineffective measure.
Quote from: zewazir on March 29, 2015, 07:41:04 PM
Well, IMO the issue is too complex to simply go back to the laws from 1945. If nothing else, technology in agriculture has significantly changed that picture, and many 1945 laws flat out won't fit.
And it also concerns me that many conservatives think shipping 11 million illegals back home will accomplish anything for very long when the economic environment continues to invite them right back in, even with strict border control. As I said in a previous post, no border can be closed completely when people are properly motivated to cross it. Look at what East Germany did to keep their people in, and still had several thousand crossings a year from a much smaller population using a much smaller border. Add to that the fact that we could never get away with the outright inhumane methods used by East Germany, and I think you can see what I mean.
It is that aspect of the issue I am trying to address. Until we change the laws so they quit encouraging people on both sides of the border to break immigration law, and replace them with laws that encourage using the legal immigration system, then deporting illegals will end up being an extremely expensive, and rather ineffective measure.
That last sentence bugs me. Expensive? Ineffective? You're listening to the liberal arguments and near on the verge of drinking that dammed kool-aid. Why do you think Obola pushed these people in here to start with, busing hundreds into every neighborhood in America? Just in case he couldn't find enough to drag our economy even further down, he invites people from other countries other than Mex. to come here. Then we get these arguments that it would be too expensive to send them back home even though we paid their passage here all the while taking care of placing them in situations that they could live and flourish in. The plan worked exactly the way it was designed to work. They are here and they ain't going anywhere and we're going to make sure that they have a nice ride by providing for them via tax dollars. We've been duped to start with but it could be fixed. All we have to do is enforce the laws already in the books. Take all the money to do this out of the democratic coffers, present and future, until the debt is paid.
Quote from: keyboarder on March 29, 2015, 09:21:55 PM
That last sentence bugs me. Expensive? Ineffective? You're listening to the liberal arguments and near on the verge of drinking that dammed kool-aid. Why do you think Obola pushed these people in here to start with, busing hundreds into every neighborhood in America? Just in case he couldn't find enough to drag our economy even further down, he invites people from other countries other than Mex. to come here. Then we get these arguments that it would be too expensive to send them back home even though we paid their passage here all the while taking care of placing them in situations that they could live and flourish in. The plan worked exactly the way it was designed to work. They are here and they ain't going anywhere and we're going to make sure that they have a nice ride by providing for them via tax dollars. We've been duped to start with but it could be fixed. All we have to do is enforce the laws already in the books. Take all the money to do this out of the democratic coffers, present and future, until the debt is paid.
What the F is it with some of the people here that whenever someone expresses an opinion which they disagree, out come the "your just a koolaid drinking liberal" accusations? Grow the F up people. I assumed the purpose of this is to have dialog, not just expound a bunch of conservative talking points as if we had no more brains than the liberals.
Yes, simply deporting illegal immigrants will be expensive AND ineffective. And that is not koolaid. Taking the cheapest route available you can think of, and try calculating just how much it will cost to send 11 million (using their figures) people across the southern border. (Now calculate it again for 25-30 million, which is probably closer to how many illegals there are to worry about.)
Taking the cheapest route, calculate how much it will cost to continue to deport 1-2 million people each year because we still haven't addressed those factors that make it attractive to break our immigration laws. Yes, that is about how many will infiltrate our borders annually, walls not withstanding, unless we do something completely drastic (and unacceptable even to most conservatives) such a mine both sides of the walls.
Is it "prohibitively expensive" to deport illegal immigrants? (THAT is what the liberals are saying, which is just a mite different than simply saying "expensive") No it is not prohibitively expensive, especially when compared to the long term costs of allowing them to stay. That is not what I am saying, nor am I saying we should not deport those already here. But it IS both expensive - more so than it should be - and inefficient since we will end up continuing to need to do so UNTIL WE CHANGE THE LAWS so that breaking the law is not so attractive.
We change those laws which make it attractive to sneak across our borders, add new laws that make it more attractive to wait in line and go through the proper paperwork and procedures to enter this country legally, design a system such that people are not facing a 10 year wait for their turn to come in legally, AND deport those who still won't follow the law. Changing the laws to encourage following the law instead of breaking it, we will be faced with far fewer deportations, which will, of course, be less expensive.
Quote from: zewazir on March 29, 2015, 07:41:04 PM
Well, IMO the issue is too complex to simply go back to the laws from 1945. If nothing else, technology in agriculture has significantly changed that picture, and many 1945 laws flat out won't fit.
And that's the line I always get from libs when I try and explain TEA and the beauty of our Founding ideals. in returning to a simpler set of laws as they had given us, in simply shrinking the Fed.
There is nothing complicated about simplicity, and reversing 70 years of bureaucracy is a pretty damned good place to start.
QuoteAnd it also concerns me that many conservatives think shipping 11 million illegals back home will accomplish anything for very long when the economic environment continues to invite them right back in, even with strict border control.
Where in the Hell did that come from, who said anything about deporting anyone?
I was referring to just the last year alone, where the Dim party promised indigents from S/A, "citizenship if they just cross the borders, send your babies, you can follow later".
Show me an actual law on the books that say's the Marxist party can do that!
And you think the immigration system is broken? The system is not broken, it's been made irrelevant.
QuoteAs I said in a previous post, no border can be closed completely when people are properly motivated to cross it. Look at what East Germany did to keep their people in, and still had several thousand crossings a year from a much smaller population using a much smaller border. Add to that the fact that we could never get away with the outright inhumane methods used by East Germany, and I think you can see what I mean.
Wherein lies the issue I pointed out earlier, that our so called Reps are to blame for the failure.
Hell, McCain stood on the border in 2012 and stated unequivocally, that the border needed to be sealed.
Yeah, he actually had the audacity to look into the camera and blatantly lie to the American people.
Then after Conservatives refused to believe anymore of his worthless traitorous ass, he pushes for an amnesty Bill.
Yet you seem to blame all of their actions on what you presume to be failed laws?
QuoteIt is that aspect of the issue I am trying to address. Until we change the laws so they quit encouraging people on both sides of the border to break immigration law, and replace them with laws that encourage using the legal immigration system, then deporting illegals will end up being an extremely expensive, and rather ineffective measure.
Damn man! How many ways do you need it presented? It's Not the Law, it's those we've charged with enforcing the laws, that didn't only fail us, they are getting their pockets lined to break them.
Simply enforcing the law on the books is all that's being asked, no, demanded of our Representatives.
Give me what you consider to be an example of changes in the law that would make any difference whatsoever.
Then ask yourself, would they be enforced any differently than the ones already in existence?
Let me reiterate. Changing the law will do nothing, it's the lack of enforcement that is at the heart of the matter.
Or rather, the willingness of Reps to break the law for personal gain
Quote from: zewazir on March 29, 2015, 09:44:26 PM
Taking the cheapest route, calculate how much it will cost to continue to deport 1-2 million people each year because we still haven't addressed those factors that make it attractive to break our immigration laws. Yes, that is about how many will infiltrate our borders annually, walls not withstanding, unless we do something completely drastic (and unacceptable even to most conservatives) such a mine both sides of the walls.
Ask yourself what draws people to risk their lives to come from places in SA and Mexico, across a brutal desert in northern Mexico and the southern US to live in this country. Yes closing the border and deporting them will not stop the flow of illegals, just slow down the inevitable. New laws will not stop the flow either, why should it when existing laws that are unenforced haven't.
When we had a recession a few years ago, the flow of illegals out of the country increased. That should be a clue as to what this country needs to do to reduce the reason that illegals come to this country.
Part of the problem is that our elected officials that swear to uphold the laws of this country don't. We don't need new or tougher laws that politicians won't enforce, we just need to enforce our existing laws. We don't need to provide free anything to illegals and we sure as hell should not be allowing them to work here. Until we,as a nation,grown a pair and make it cost prohibitive for employers to hire illegals, the problem will never be solved. Until we grow a pair and stop giving illegals the same rights and benefits as citizens, the problem will just continue to grow.
Thanks solar and tac for the comments. We (all three of us) have tried to explain the immigration problem to this poster. In my case, I'm told that I need to grow up. I guess it was because I have a simple solution to our growing problem with illegals and that is exactly what both of you stated as well. We need enforcement of the laws we already have in dealing with immigration. Simple. In my 70 years on earth, I've never had a problem with following any law we have and in following our laws to the best of my ability I've missed out on the various correctional means and facilities that we have in the states. It has been so much better to just obey our laws-no one is hurt that way. Whenever people break laws to better their situation, the trickle down effect kicks in and somebody on down the line has to pay. We are being asked to reward lawlessness by taking up measures to make sure that the invaders of our country get their free ride.
Hell no! Why should we reward anything remotely close to what our congress is suggesting along the lines of "a pathway to citizenship'? That path was formed long ago but the folks in that path are restless and want what they want now. They have never stopped having babies to lighten their load, just keep having babies here and the liberals will raise so much hell that the rest of us won't want to be the bad guys and so give in.
I'd never give in to the demands of a people that think they are above the laws of our land. Has our history not taught some people anything?
We are a nation of immigrants and as such have a diverse bunch of people. Some are very ambitious and intelligent and make wonderful contributions to our nation. Others may not be as affluent and cause alot of problems. Nevertheless, it has taken alot of differences to make up this country. Everyone pretty much agrees that we do have moral codes and laws governing us but there has to be order in all things. Where is the order in pushing our nose into actions created by power hungry individuals whose sole reason is their own agenda of creating a legacy of sorts that makes a mockery of the very origin of our nation? Hell, we may as well go back to the lawlessness of the wild west and everyman for himself deal.
I recognize, and acknowledge, that a major factor in the illegal immigrant problem that current laws are not being enforced. (Solar: what brought up deportation is your desire to enforce existing law, and go back to laws of 70 years ago. One of the laws being most ignored is that part which requires deportation of illegal immigrants. Laws which are not enforced are even more useless than you average politician. So, yes, enforcement of current laws - which do include deportation - need to be enforced, to the letter and consistently.
But there is still more in the picture than unenforced immigration laws. Some laws, many of which are not immigration laws, ARE being enforced, and in being enforced, contribute heavily to the problem.
Let me give some examples of laws that ARE being enforced, but not to our benefit.
How about the laws of several states which gives illegal aliens our tax dollars in dozens of targeted welfare programs. Does anyone think we should, just maybe, CHANGE those laws?
Or how about the laws in several states which give illegals preferential treatment in the education system? Or, for that matter, laws allowing them to be enrolled in public, or even private schools in the first place? I dunno, but seems to me changing those law just MIGHT reduce the reasons so many are willing to risk coming here in violation of the law. Just MAYBE?
How about those state that allow illegals to be issued valid drivers licenses. Another law I'd like to see changed.
And one I've already mentioned: change federal law to forbid state welfare agencies from using federal dollars to fund welfare for illegals.
And, does anyone know the penalties out there, were the law enforced, for hiring illegals? In some places the fines are so low, an employer can pay them from one day's profit difference between hiring illegals, and paying minimum (or in many places UNION) wages to legal workers. Maybe change THOSE laws, increasing the penalty for hiring illegals so it is no longer profitable to risk getting caught.
And, yes, we need a government with people who will strictly enforce the laws that make it unattractive to break our immigration laws, and change or get rid of all those laws which make it ATTRACTIVE to break our immigration laws. And no, it will NOT be cheap, but the alternative of letting things continue as is, or be made orders of magnitude worse through amnesty is already even more expensive. But unless we address ALL the factors which lead to people literally risk death in order to break our immigration laws, just keeping things in balance will continue to be expensive. But it needn't continue to be expensive IF we get rid of the laws that were written to lure them here. AND enforce existing laws. AND make some of those existing laws more strict, with harsher penalties. If risking their lives to come here in violation of law has ZERO chance of netting them the maximum of a ride back south, and in most cases a boot in the backside (or some technological equivalent) before they even cross the border going north, then I don't see many making the attempt.
Oh, and the issue of anchor babies MUST be addressed, even if it means amending the 14th Amendment. We cannot allow anchor babies, yet the Constitution itself says they must. Nor can we, without being hypocrites in the liberal style, be willing to enforce laws in violation of the Constitution, no matter how much we need to do so.
What we need to fix the problem is a mighty tall order.
Especially the need to fill government with honest, conservative politicians. I'm not sure such a thing exists.
Your points regarding education and welfare are valid points, but if they are state laws CONgress can and will do nothing.
The entire illegal snafu boils down to one thing - votes for the politicians. When the two parties are both pandering for the same vote, you can pretty well count on them never changing or enforcing any laws that will restrict that vote. New laws to restrict what the illegals get are a pipe dream and won't happen as long as the politicians want those votes. The problem isn't the laws it's the politicians, they are the things that need to be changed.
In the mean time, enforce the current laws, if you can,and many of these illegals will probably self deport. Until we get Constitutional conservatives running the states and the federal government, don't expect any change from so called conservatives like Bush.
Quote from: zewazir on March 30, 2015, 10:18:57 PM
I recognize, and acknowledge, that a major factor in the illegal immigrant problem that current laws are not being enforced. (Solar: what brought up deportation is your desire to enforce existing law, and go back to laws of 70 years ago. One of the laws being most ignored is that part which requires deportation of illegal immigrants. Laws which are not enforced are even more useless than you average politician. So, yes, enforcement of current laws - which do include deportation - need to be enforced, to the letter and consistently.
But there is still more in the picture than unenforced immigration laws. Some laws, many of which are not immigration laws, ARE being enforced, and in being enforced, contribute heavily to the problem.
Let me give some examples of laws that ARE being enforced, but not to our benefit.
How about the laws of several states which gives illegal aliens our tax dollars in dozens of targeted welfare programs. Does anyone think we should, just maybe, CHANGE those laws?
Or how about the laws in several states which give illegals preferential treatment in the education system? Or, for that matter, laws allowing them to be enrolled in public, or even private schools in the first place? I dunno, but seems to me changing those law just MIGHT reduce the reasons so many are willing to risk coming here in violation of the law. Just MAYBE?
How about those state that allow illegals to be issued valid drivers licenses. Another law I'd like to see changed.
And one I've already mentioned: change federal law to forbid state welfare agencies from using federal dollars to fund welfare for illegals.
And, does anyone know the penalties out there, were the law enforced, for hiring illegals? In some places the fines are so low, an employer can pay them from one day's profit difference between hiring illegals, and paying minimum (or in many places UNION) wages to legal workers. Maybe change THOSE laws, increasing the penalty for hiring illegals so it is no longer profitable to risk getting caught.
And, yes, we need a government with people who will strictly enforce the laws that make it unattractive to break our immigration laws, and change or get rid of all those laws which make it ATTRACTIVE to break our immigration laws. And no, it will NOT be cheap, but the alternative of letting things continue as is, or be made orders of magnitude worse through amnesty is already even more expensive. But unless we address ALL the factors which lead to people literally risk death in order to break our immigration laws, just keeping things in balance will continue to be expensive. But it needn't continue to be expensive IF we get rid of the laws that were written to lure them here. AND enforce existing laws. AND make some of those existing laws more strict, with harsher penalties. If risking their lives to come here in violation of law has ZERO chance of netting them the maximum of a ride back south, and in most cases a boot in the backside (or some technological equivalent) before they even cross the border going north, then I don't see many making the attempt.
Oh, and the issue of anchor babies MUST be addressed, even if it means amending the 14th Amendment. We cannot allow anchor babies, yet the Constitution itself says they must. Nor can we, without being hypocrites in the liberal style, be willing to enforce laws in violation of the Constitution, no matter how much we need to do so.
What we need to fix the problem is a mighty tall order.
Especially the need to fill government with honest, conservative politicians. I'm not sure such a thing exists.
Z, I know what you're saying, even agree. But passing new laws, because the old ones are being ignored or intentionally broken, is not gong to solve anything.
I say roll back 70 years for reasons of simplicity, because along the way, the laws have been relaxed or totally changed governing Fed assistance to states with an illegal problem, encouraging bad behavior, all thanks to the GOP assisting the Dims.
The so called two party system created this problem, and expecting them to fix it is an attempt at insanity.
We must purge the perpetrators in the party, as we are currently doing. Once that happens, you'll start to see some sanity return to govt.
As it stands, Boner and the Con are not doing the job they were elected to do, in fact, quite the opposite, when at every turn, fight the people over the border issue.
Does that sound like a govt that wants to fix our illegal immigration issue?
Quote from: tac on March 30, 2015, 11:47:47 PM
Your points regarding education and welfare are valid points, but if they are state laws CONgress can and will do nothing.
The entire illegal snafu boils down to one thing - votes for the politicians. When the two parties are both pandering for the same vote, you can pretty well count on them never changing or enforcing any laws that will restrict that vote. New laws to restrict what the illegals get are a pipe dream and won't happen as long as the politicians want those votes. The problem isn't the laws it's the politicians, they are the things that need to be changed.
In the mean time, enforce the current laws, if you can,and many of these illegals will probably self deport. Until we get Constitutional conservatives running the states and the federal government, don't expect any change from so called conservatives like Bush.
Which is basically the point I am making. In fact I made the point about feds not being able to do anything about state laws twice. And got called a koolaid drinker for it.
We can enforce federal laws (assuming we can elect a large enough congressional majority of true conservatives), and we should. But doing so will be shoveling back the tide with a teaspoon as long as states like commiefornia continue with their laws that literally bribe people to risk their lives to come here and F up our economy.
IF we want to be able to address the problem of illegal immigration WITHOUT a continual heavy economic drain, we need to get rid of all laws which bribe people to come in, and strengthen laws which encourage them to use the legal route to U.S. residency and/or citizenship. But that can not happen only at the federal level.
Meanwhile, anything even remotely resembling anything that distantly approaches amnesty will simply increase the problem by a couple orders of magnitude.
Frankly, I haven't a foggy clue what to do about anchor babies, since the Constitution itself defines them as citizens. Do we take them away from their parents and send the parents packing? That's a hell of a harsh solution.
QuoteIF we want to be able to address the problem of illegal immigration WITHOUT a continual heavy economic drain, we need to get rid of all laws which bribe people to come in, and strengthen laws which encourage them to use the legal route to U.S. residency and/or citizenship. But that can not happen only at the federal level.
How you you go about doing that? Given the current CONgress, I'd say that's impossible in the short term, and a maybe in the long term. Replacing the progressives in both parties is not a short term,one or two election cycles, process. We didn't get to this point in one, two or even three elections cycles, it has taken decades for the progressives (from both parties) to seize power, ousting them can be done but not in time to same this country from those that will destroy it with an amnesty program or not enforcing immigration laws. The laws are not the problem,in most cases,it's the politicians and the morons that elect them and pass these laws or refuse to enforce them. You can't rely on the voting booth to term limit these people, it doesn't work!
It's not that I disagree with what you are saying, it's just that you cannot force the current crop of politicians to do what you want. That goes for the state as well as the federal level.
Quote from: tac on March 31, 2015, 02:41:52 AM
How you you go about doing that? Given the current CONgress, I'd say that's impossible in the short term, and a maybe in the long term. Replacing the progressives in both parties is not a short term,one or two election cycles, process. We didn't get to this point in one, two or even three elections cycles, it has taken decades for the progressives (from both parties) to seize power, ousting them can be done but not in time to same this country from those that will destroy it with an amnesty program or not enforcing immigration laws. The laws are not the problem,in most cases,it's the politicians and the morons that elect them and pass these laws or refuse to enforce them. You can't rely on the voting booth to term limit these people, it doesn't work!
It's not that I disagree with what you are saying, it's just that you cannot force the current crop of politicians to do what you want. That goes for the state as well as the federal level.
Amen! 'twill be no easy or quick fix. It must start somewhere very soon though as the future generation is being so indoctrinated that conservative change won't happen with them. It must start with us in order for the next generation to have a chance to survive.
If we cannot rely on voters to term-limit our elected criminals, there's always this thought, from the Rev. G. K. Chesterton....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgggdrgfwdfgfbdxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fwtwtqtfwkxrdfqfgqrg%2F1%2F1595431%2F10163839%2Fterriblechesterton216x319-vi.jpg&hash=d4f40b79fa9c330ba0f6fcc8a201b1b8b69cd178)
Quote from: quiller on March 31, 2015, 06:35:48 AM
If we cannot rely on voters to term-limit our elected criminals, there's always this thought, from the Rev. G. K. Chesterton....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgggdrgfwdfgfbdxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fwtwtqtfwkxrdfqfgqrg%2F1%2F1595431%2F10163839%2Fterriblechesterton216x319-vi.jpg&hash=d4f40b79fa9c330ba0f6fcc8a201b1b8b69cd178)
That's the best and quickest fix yet! I was just too chicken to post it. :smile:
Quote from: quiller on March 31, 2015, 06:35:48 AM
If we cannot rely on voters to term-limit our elected criminals, there's always this thought, from the Rev. G. K. Chesterton....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgggdrgfwdfgfbdxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fwtwtqtfwkxrdfqfgqrg%2F1%2F1595431%2F10163839%2Fterriblechesterton216x319-vi.jpg&hash=d4f40b79fa9c330ba0f6fcc8a201b1b8b69cd178)
Works for me.
Quote from: zewazir on March 31, 2015, 02:21:14 AM
Which is basically the point I am making. In fact I made the point about feds not being able to do anything about state laws twice. And got called a koolaid drinker for it.
We can enforce federal laws (assuming we can elect a large enough congressional majority of true conservatives), and we should. But doing so will be shoveling back the tide with a teaspoon as long as states like commiefornia continue with their laws that literally bribe people to risk their lives to come here and F up our economy.
IF we want to be able to address the problem of illegal immigration WITHOUT a continual heavy economic drain, we need to get rid of all laws which bribe people to come in, and strengthen laws which encourage them to use the legal route to U.S. residency and/or citizenship. But that can not happen only at the federal level.
Meanwhile, anything even remotely resembling anything that distantly approaches amnesty will simply increase the problem by a couple orders of magnitude.
Frankly, I haven't a foggy clue what to do about anchor babies, since the Constitution itself defines them as citizens. Do we take them away from their parents and send the parents packing? That's a hell of a harsh solution.
"Frankly, I haven't a foggy clue what to do about anchor babies, since the Constitution itself defines them as citizens. Do we take them away from their parents and send the parents packing? That's a hell of a harsh solution."
I will just comment on this portion of your argument. Anchor babies and their parents are a challenge. Yes, it would be harsh to send the parents back and the "hand wringers" would play the victim card. Here is my suggestion. The parents can stay, but would not be eligible for citizenship unless they follow existing immigration procedures. Secondly, these people would not be eligible for any government assistance. Then, if they want to stay - fine. However, don't commit a felony or the ass is back to their originating country.
Quote from: keyboarder on March 31, 2015, 06:48:06 AM
That's the best and quickest fix yet! I was just too chicken to post it. :smile:
And who, madam, shall we hang first? Dare I suggest the first two hundred we catch? ANY two hundred?
Quote from: Solar on March 31, 2015, 02:09:01 AM
Z, I know what you're saying, even agree. But passing new laws, because the old ones are being ignored or intentionally broken, is not gong to solve anything.
I say roll back 70 years for reasons of simplicity, because along the way, the laws have been relaxed or totally changed governing Fed assistance to states with an illegal problem, encouraging bad behavior, all thanks to the GOP assisting the Dims.
The so called two party system created this problem, and expecting them to fix it is an attempt at insanity.
We must purge the perpetrators in the party, as we are currently doing. Once that happens, you'll start to see some sanity return to govt.
As it stands, Boner and the Con are not doing the job they were elected to do, in fact, quite the opposite, when at every turn, fight the people over the border issue.
Does that sound like a govt that wants to fix our illegal immigration issue?
What you call "rolling back" I call change. Matter of semantics, except I believe we need even more strict penalties for violating immigration laws than existed 70 years ago - especially against employers who employ illegals to cut labor costs.
Of course, this is all an exercise in rhetoric, since we need a majority, maybe even a super majority of honest conservative politicians in both houses of congress, as well as majorities in several state legislatures before anything will change for the better. That will take time, and in the mean time we will continue to see the current batch of tyrant wannabes using their various "protected classes" like the tools they allow themselves to be in order to propagate their agenda against the Republic.
TEA is making a difference, and I am proud to be an active part of it. But, I'll admit, sometimes I wonder if we can do enough, soon enough.
Quote from: zewazir on March 31, 2015, 12:02:26 PM
What you call "rolling back" I call change. Matter of semantics, except I believe we need even more strict penalties for violating immigration laws than existed 70 years ago - especially against employers who employ illegals to cut labor costs.
Of course, this is all an exercise in rhetoric, since we need a majority, maybe even a super majority of honest conservative politicians in both houses of congress, as well as majorities in several state legislatures before anything will change for the better. That will take time, and in the mean time we will continue to see the current batch of tyrant wannabes using their various "protected classes" like the tools they allow themselves to be in order to propagate their agenda against the Republic.
TEA is making a difference, and I am proud to be an active part of it. But, I'll admit, sometimes I wonder if we can do enough, soon enough.
The laws are there but what do you do when you have a president and an AG that refuses to follow them? Why not make the AG office an elected position as it is in most states? Holder could never have stood for reelection on his record! :popcorn: :popcorn:
Quote from: redbeard on March 31, 2015, 01:48:11 PM
The laws are there but what do you do when you have a president and an AG that refuses to follow them? Why not make the AG office an elected position as it is in most states? Holder could never have stood for reelection on his record! :popcorn: :popcorn:
Hah! Based on his record, Obama should never have been elected, either, let alone reelected. Yet here we are....
And, yes, SOME laws are there. But not only are they ignored by those whose oath is to uphold them, they are, IMO, also not harsh enough. Especially those portions that describe the penalties for infraction. For instance, I would peg the fine for hiring illegals at $10,000 per worker, per day. That would make eve the larger employers think twice about risking their business if they get caught. The current penalties can't even be described as a slap on the wrist. (IF, of course, they are enforced at all...)
Quote from: quiller on March 31, 2015, 11:16:38 AM
And who, madam, shall we hang first? Dare I suggest the first two hundred we catch? ANY two hundred?
LOL, just stand at the door of any local Walmart and pick them off.
Quote from: keyboarder on April 01, 2015, 06:11:56 AM
LOL, just stand at the door of any local Walmart and pick them off.
Let's focus on the elected criminals first. But anyone wanting to shoot the
coyotes who guide wetbacks to us, it's got to be a blessing.
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?
Because with the exception of most here, most Americans look to their elected leadership to "fix" these "problems".
And that's the huge problem right there. The people sit by and wait for these politicians to fix the issue, all the while their representatives to the Congress do any old thing they want.
Take Pelosi for example. How on Gods earth does a woman who tells the American people, we have to pass a bill into law in secret, before the people can know what's in it?
There was a time when that would have ended her career politically.
But nope instead, she's re-elected.... :rolleyes:
What immigration laws? Instead of them crossing the border illegally, we are now going to go pick them up.
State Department To Fly Central American Children Into USQuoteThe State Department and Department of Homeland Security will administer the program, which is a response to the flood of Central American children making dangerous journeys to illegally cross the U.S. southern border.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/01/state-department-to-fly-central-american-children-into-us/ (http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/01/state-department-to-fly-central-american-children-into-us/)