Jump to content

White House wants ILLEGALS to be paid


flaps15

Recommended Posts

unfu..ing believable how this administration is trying to blur the basic perception of illegal vs legal.

 

'This video is proudly brought to you by the Los Angeles Times, your Pro Crime/Pro Illegal Alien Newspaper with daily Hallmarky sappy articles about fukers who shouldn't be here, written specifically for those of you who sit when they pee, so that you can cry and feel bad and guilty about your own success'....

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you retards, it's about getting intell. on the people who are expoiting their status.

 

 

ODS is a hell of a drug....

Bullshit "Whether documented or NOT" does not belong in the commercial that my tax dollars paid for.

 

 

ODS causes Obama DENIAL Syndrome some of you OD on it daily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, you're fucked-out wrong on this one.

 

Sorry Pal........

 

 

I'm confused, aren't you R Booth, the contractor? If so, I think I know why you have been out-bid on your contracts. "Illegals" work harder and better than some gringo high-school grad. Get with the program. And don't give me some bullshit about legal. You break the law every day when you go 67 mph on a highway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents - if the illegals cost the employer the same as legals, won't the buyers of said services get legal workers? Kinda takes away the incentive to hire illegals - which, if they can't find jobs, won't come here.

 

Seems like a reasonable way to try to shut off the demand.

 

Ain't no way they can sell this though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you retards, it's about getting intell. on the people who are expoiting their status.

 

 

ODS is a hell of a drug....

 

ahhh no....this is called pandering.....not to mention about the dumbest thing i've heard in quite some time....it's funny really, just when you think the clowns in DC can't come up with anything more inane they pull the trigger and surprise you with some good humor....

 

given the abject failure of the fed gov re immigration in the current era, i think this fits right in...thanks for nothin' Solis...

 

edit to add: she does appear quite earnest though, so gets a style point or two for her delivery, which is sure to win over matt lauer and the today show crowd, as well as maddow, etc.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

If illegal immigrants were paid the same as others, who would hire the illegal immigrants?. With no jobs available here, why would people enter the country illegally?.

 

Look at the forest, not the individual trees. I don't condone or agree with illegal immigration, but if you remove the economic lure, the problem takes care of itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If illegal immigrants were paid the same as others, who would hire the illegal immigrants?. With no jobs available here, why would people enter the country illegally?.

 

Look at the forest, not the individual trees. I don't condone or agree with illegal immigration, but if you remove the economic lure, the problem takes care of itself.

 

for this to be truly effective you would have to effectively remove the concept of cash transactions from our system and have traceability on every monetary transaction...

 

this is pie in the sky stuff......more bull shit to distract people from the fact that the fed gov refuses to do the hard work at the border first and foremost and also in the congress to address immigration in a meaningful fashion...

 

as i said, this is pandering at its most shameless and disgusting level......

Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't give me some bullshit about legal. You break the law every day when you go 67 mph on a highway.

 

So.... Are serial murderers as bad as speeders? Both are breaking the law.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

If illegal immigrants were paid the same as others, who would hire the illegal immigrants?. With no jobs available here, why would people enter the country illegally?.

 

Look at the forest, not the individual trees. I don't condone or agree with illegal immigration, but if you remove the economic lure, the problem takes care of itself.

 

for this to be truly effective you would have to effectively remove the concept of cash transactions from our system and have traceability on every monetary transaction...

 

this is pie in the sky stuff......more bull shit to distract people from the fact that the fed gov refuses to do the hard work at the border first and foremost and also in the congress to address immigration in a meaningful fashion...

 

as i said, this is pandering at its most shameless and disgusting level......

 

What do cash transactions for the purchase of goods have to do with employing illegal immigrants?. Smaller companies and individuals would be harder to monitor and track, but paying people under the table happens regardless of the status of employees, it is certainly not unique to illegal immigrants. Are you going to remove the concept of barter as well?.

 

People employ illegals in large part because they will work for much less than documented aliens or U.S. citizens, and are willing to do menial labor that others won't.

 

Not to hijack, but this isn't really different from illegal drugs and the self defeating way the U.S. has fought them over the last fifty years, the focus is on the supply and not enough on the demand. If you remove the demand, there is no supply problem. There is no way you will ever completely secure our borders, or effectively track immigrants in this country.

 

It would raise a whole bunch of problems with inflationary pressures and cost competitiveness, but from the narrow perspective of illegal immigration it is not that far fetched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If illegal immigrants were paid the same as others, who would hire the illegal immigrants?. With no jobs available here, why would people enter the country illegally?.

 

Look at the forest, not the individual trees. I don't condone or agree with illegal immigration, but if you remove the economic lure, the problem takes care of itself.

 

for this to be truly effective you would have to effectively remove the concept of cash transactions from our system and have traceability on every monetary transaction...

 

this is pie in the sky stuff......more bull shit to distract people from the fact that the fed gov refuses to do the hard work at the border first and foremost and also in the congress to address immigration in a meaningful fashion...

 

as i said, this is pandering at its most shameless and disgusting level......

 

 

What do cash transactions for the purchase of goods have to do with employing illegal immigrants?. Smaller companies and individuals would be harder to monitor and track, but paying people under the table happens regardless of the status of employees, it is certainly not unique to illegal immigrants. Are you going to remove the concept of barter as well?.

 

People employ illegals in large part because they will work for much less than documented aliens or U.S. citizens, and are willing to do menial labor that others won't.

 

Not to hijack, but this isn't really different from illegal drugs and the self defeating way the U.S. has fought them over the last fifty years, the focus is on the supply and not enough on the demand. If you remove the demand, there is no supply problem. There is no way you will ever completely secure our borders, or effectively track immigrants in this country.

 

It would raise a whole bunch of problems with inflationary pressures and cost competitiveness, but from the narrow perspective of illegal immigration it is not that far fetched.

 

thats my point with this stuff...the cash economy and traceability of wages paid....

 

the only way for the fed to enforce this la-la land idea is to have traceability...

 

without that everything goes under the table at that level and you cannot enforce any type of fair wages scam...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If illegal immigrants were paid the same as others, who would hire the illegal immigrants?. With no jobs available here, why would people enter the country illegally?.

 

Look at the forest, not the individual trees. I don't condone or agree with illegal immigration, but if you remove the economic lure, the problem takes care of itself.

 

for this to be truly effective you would have to effectively remove the concept of cash transactions from our system and have traceability on every monetary transaction...

 

this is pie in the sky stuff......more bull shit to distract people from the fact that the fed gov refuses to do the hard work at the border first and foremost and also in the congress to address immigration in a meaningful fashion...

 

as i said, this is pandering at its most shameless and disgusting level......

 

 

This is exactly correct. Close and secure the borders first, then we work with the ancillary problems of illegals, drugs, and the smuggling of weapons/guns in either direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the wingers on this thread:

 

Is it REALLY your point of view that fair labor laws in this country should NOT apply to undocumented workers? If so, can you please explain how this stance will have a positive impact on the problem of illegal immigration?

Link to post
Share on other sites

short answer: yes.

 

and i am not a "winger".....but rather a pragmatist.....

 

the bleeding heart b.s. about "undocumented" (i.e. illegal) workers is tedious......

 

Your short answer is not an answer ... so fine, we are only selectively a nation of laws, and if someone breaks one, none of the rest apply.

 

The answer that was missing:

How does that improve the problem of illegal immigration?

 

p.s. sorry that the technically correct, but apparently politically incorrect (for you at least) term 'undocumented worker' seems 'tedious' and 'bleeding heart b.s.' to you. Apparently your 'pragmatist' philosophy will brook no such terminology. How pragmatic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the wingers on this thread:

 

Is it REALLY your point of view that fair labor laws in this country should NOT apply to undocumented workers? If so, can you please explain how this stance will have a positive impact on the problem of illegal immigration?

 

They didn't come here to exploit our fair labor law, although that would be a plus for them if they could. They are here because work that pays $5/day in Mexico if you can get it pays $5/hr here. Sorry, not Keynesian economics, just the plain old kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the wingers on this thread:

 

Is it REALLY your point of view that fair labor laws in this country should NOT apply to undocumented workers? If so, can you please explain how this stance will have a positive impact on the problem of illegal immigration?

 

They didn't come here to exploit our fair labor law, although that would be a plus for them if they could. They are here because work that pays $5/day in Mexico if you can get it pays $5/hr here. Sorry, not Keynesian economics, just the plain old kind.

 

Understood (if they get paid at all) -- which is part of the whole demand side of the equation, and negatively impacts LEGAL employment and prosperity here as well. Unless and until we crack down on exploitative (and, uh, ALSO illegal) practices by employers, there ain't a border protection scheme in the world that is going to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

short answer: yes.

 

and i am not a "winger".....but rather a pragmatist.....

 

the bleeding heart b.s. about "undocumented" (i.e. illegal) workers is tedious......

 

Your short answer is not an answer ... so fine, we are only selectively a nation of laws, and if someone breaks one, none of the rest apply.

 

The answer that was missing:

How does that improve the problem of illegal immigration?

 

p.s. sorry that the technically correct, but apparently politically incorrect (for you at least) term 'undocumented worker' seems 'tedious' and 'bleeding heart b.s.' to you. Apparently your 'pragmatist' philosophy will brook no such terminology. How pragmatic.

 

I agree with your basic premise, but the term "undocumented" is itself a PC red herring. The overwhelming majority of "undocumented" immigrants are "undocumented" because they did not migrate legally, or have overstayed the period that they were granted. In either case, they have no legal standing to be in this country, can calling them undocumented gives a legitimacy to their situation that is not deserved. The few that did migrate legally and do not have the correct documents are not the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never be able to completely secure our borders, at least not long term. The parallel between this argument and illegal drugs is striking, and the result will be the same. Look at the money and resources that various levels of government spend fighting the importation and distribution of illegal drugs, and they still only stop a small fraction of them.

 

As long as there is money and opportunity, people will find ways. Eliminate that opportunity, and the problem solves itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your basic premise, but the term "undocumented" is itself a PC red herring. The overwhelming majority of "undocumented" immigrants are "undocumented" because they did not migrate legally, or have overstayed the period that they were granted. In either case, they have no legal standing to be in this country, can calling them undocumented gives a legitimacy to their situation that is not deserved. The few that did migrate legally and do not have the correct documents are not the issue.

 

Fair enough, but choosing to object to a term (notably, one used by the Department of Labor itself to describe illegals), instead of debating the issue on its merits is not useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I agree with your basic premise, but the term "undocumented" is itself a PC red herring. The overwhelming majority of "undocumented" immigrants are "undocumented" because they did not migrate legally, or have overstayed the period that they were granted. In either case, they have no legal standing to be in this country, can calling them undocumented gives a legitimacy to their situation that is not deserved. The few that did migrate legally and do not have the correct documents are not the issue.

 

I'm thinking in Chuck's world I'm most probably classified as one of his "wingers". Be that as it may, the above post is most in line with my thinking on the subject of Illegals. Thanks for the reference barleymalt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

short answer: yes.

 

and i am not a "winger".....but rather a pragmatist.....

 

the bleeding heart b.s. about "undocumented" (i.e. illegal) workers is tedious......

 

Your short answer is not an answer ... so fine, we are only selectively a nation of laws, and if someone breaks one, none of the rest apply.

 

The answer that was missing:

How does that improve the problem of illegal immigration?

 

p.s. sorry that the technically correct, but apparently politically incorrect (for you at least) term 'undocumented worker' seems 'tedious' and 'bleeding heart b.s.' to you. Apparently your 'pragmatist' philosophy will brook no such terminology. How pragmatic.

 

oh good god..."undocumented" is just a bull shit PC term and you know it....

 

not really sure where you are getting the first sentence....it would be my contention that if you are in the country illegally, then you do not rate to be a beneficiary of our laws, why is that such an alien concept ( no pun intended)......

 

moreover, as i have posted on numerous occasions, it is my opinion that unless or until we first and foremost secure the borders, then we will be unsuccessful with the second step of rational immigration reform which would include a realistic guest worker program and a manageable path to citizenship for those already in the country that wish to be citizens.

 

the idea that the fed gov can somehow go out and enforce documented worker compliance at every mom and pop business utilizing undocumented labor, and that that will have some profound impact on the illegal immigrant situation is so far beyond realistic as to be quite laughable...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking in Chuck's world I'm most probably classified as one of his "wingers". Be that as it may, the above post is most in line with my thinking on the subject of Illegals. Thanks for the reference Barleymalt.

 

I don't mean (that) unkindly. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk reaction. Regarding my questions, though, got any answers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your basic premise, but the term "undocumented" is itself a PC red herring. The overwhelming majority of "undocumented" immigrants are "undocumented" because they did not migrate legally, or have overstayed the period that they were granted. In either case, they have no legal standing to be in this country, can calling them undocumented gives a legitimacy to their situation that is not deserved. The few that did migrate legally and do not have the correct documents are not the issue.

 

Fair enough, but choosing to object to a term (notably, one used by the Department of Labor itself to describe illegals), instead of debating the issue on its merits is not useful.

 

What part of "I agree with your basic premise" requires further debate?..;). The government is the seventh level of PC hell, there are people that have made a government career out of telling thing like they aren't. That's it, I refuse to be called White anymore. I am a CAUCASIAN-EUROPEAN-AMERICAN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
not really sure where you are getting the first sentence....it would be my contention that if you are in the country illegally, then you do not rate to be a beneficiary of our laws, why is that such an alien concept ( no pun intended)......

 

Seems like my first sentence was spot on, as confirmed by the bolded part of your reply above. Can you provide ANY citation to existing law that states, in effect, that if you're here illegally 'you do not rate to be a beneficiary of our laws'? Because I can cite more than a few that say exactly the opposite, if you like.

 

The issue ain't with 'every mom and pop', by the way. There are one helluva lot of LARGE companies that are recruiting people in Mexico and Central America to make it past the Rio Grande whereupon they'll be employed throughout the country. And these people often are exploited in that the original terms offered are not delivered by the employer.

 

I agree that there are two sides to this issue and 'securing the border' is a piece of the solution to the problem. But so long as the demand-side persists, and is exploited in such flagrant and abusive ways, efforts to 'secure the border' are going to have about as much impact on illegal immigration as the billions and billions we've spent on 'the war on drugs' have had on the problem illegal drug importation into the U.S. : i.e., nill.

 

Seriously, how pragmatic is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking in Chuck's world I'm most probably classified as one of his "wingers". Be that as it may, the above post is most in line with my thinking on the subject of Illegals. Thanks for the reference Barleymalt.

 

I don't mean (that) unkindly. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk reaction. Regarding my questions, though, got any answers?

 

go back and look at the kennedy-kyl bill from 07. it was a good start at trying to address the immigration issue...it was killed by both far sides of each wing, in a display of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face that is SOP in DC and rather pathetic.....what we are seeing now AZ and the subsequent knee-jerk reactions of the pols in DC (like the little speech that started this thread) and elsewhere, is just a sad example of the chicken coming home to roost....

 

if obama and the D congress were smart, and that's a big if, they would resurrect the kennedy-kyl bill, take 5-7 divisions out of afghan/iraq and redploy them to the border to seal it, and fix this problem...it really is that simple. the problem is, that would take a metric shit ton of political courage that i dont think exists anywhere on either side of the aisle in DC...

 

that said, if obama pulled a trigger like that, and actually delivered. i would very happily put one of those cheesy hope stickers on my car next to my eagle, globe and anchor (and that's saying something)......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking in Chuck's world I'm most probably classified as one of his "wingers". Be that as it may, the above post is most in line with my thinking on the subject of Illegals. Thanks for the reference Barleymalt.

 

I don't mean (that) unkindly. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk reaction. Regarding my questions, though, got any answers?

It would be an additional incentive to break immigration law if they believed they would be treated fairly on the job. It is probably not much of an incentive and most would not use it. Illegals have a lifelong learned and legitimate distrust of authority. Anyone who has any history with the gov would.

 

My take is that this is propaganda for hispanic population in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if obama and the D congress were smart, and that's a big if, they would resurrect the kennedy-kyl bill, take 5-7 divisions out of afghan/iraq and redploy them to the border to seal it, and fix this problem...it really is that simple. the problem is, that would take a metric shit ton of political courage that i dont think exists anywhere on either side of the aisle in DC...

 

 

How long are you going to keep those troops on the border?. Ten years?..Twenty?. Even that many troops can not seal the entire length of our southern border, there will be gaps. And the illegals will get on boats, and land in Texas and California north of the deployed troops. And the game will go on tying up resources in a futile effort to prevent that which can not be prevented. And that doesn't even take our northern border into account.

Link to post
Share on other sites
not really sure where you are getting the first sentence....it would be my contention that if you are in the country illegally, then you do not rate to be a beneficiary of our laws, why is that such an alien concept ( no pun intended)......

 

Seems like my first sentence was spot on, as confirmed by the bolded part of your reply above. Can you provide ANY citation to existing law that states, in effect, that if you're here illegally 'you do not rate to be a beneficiary of our laws'? Because I can cite more than a few that say exactly the opposite, if you like.

 

The issue ain't with 'every mom and pop', by the way. There are one helluva lot of LARGE companies that are recruiting people in Mexico and Central America to make it past the Rio Grande whereupon they'll be employed throughout the country. And these people often are exploited in that the original terms offered are not delivered by the employer.

 

I agree that there are two sides to this issue and 'securing the border' is a piece of the solution to the problem. But so long as the demand-side persists, and is exploited in such flagrant and abusive ways, efforts to 'secure the border' are going to have about as much impact on illegal immigration as the billions and billions we've spent on 'the war on drugs' have had on the problem illegal drug importation into the U.S. : i.e., nill.

 

Seriously, how pragmatic is that?

So should we regulate an illegal activity? It sounds ( I think it is) ridiculous, but is not without precedent.

 

 

SouthCarolinaTax_enl.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be an additional incentive to break immigration law if they believed they would be treated fairly on the job. It is probably not much of an incentive and most would not use it. Illegals have a lifelong learned and legitimate distrust of authority. Anyone who has any history with the gov would.

 

My take is that this is propaganda for hispanic population in general.

 

You're probably not far from the mark on that point. It draws a sharp contrast between Dems and Republicans on an important issue amongst the fastest growing demographic in the country. Republicans can continue to try to appeal to angry white boys all they like, they're losing the numbers battle over the long-haul with all their double-talk about wanting smaller government and at the same time their apparent desire to try to militarize everything. This white boy ain't buyin' what they're sellin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, can an illegal alien (or any other law breaker, for that matter) look to any of our laws for protection and, if so, which ones? ...or can we rob and kill them at will? That would stop illegal migration pretty quick, wouldn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if obama and the D congress were smart, and that's a big if, they would resurrect the kennedy-kyl bill, take 5-7 divisions out of afghan/iraq and redploy them to the border to seal it, and fix this problem...it really is that simple. the problem is, that would take a metric shit ton of political courage that i dont think exists anywhere on either side of the aisle in DC...

 

 

How long are you going to keep those troops on the border?. Ten years?..Twenty?. Even that many troops can not seal the entire length of our southern border, there will be gaps. And the illegals will get on boats, and land in Texas and California north of the deployed troops. And the game will go on tying up resources in a futile effort to prevent that which can not be prevented. And that doesn't even take our northern border into account.

 

we have two issues going on right now with that border, one is the obvious immigration issue, the other is that mexico is arguably at this point not all that stable....we need to lock down that border...

 

and if 5-7 divisions isn't enough put 10 down there....and if they were there for 5-10 years so what. when we do not have active combat deployments going on they sit at other bases doing the same shit they would be doing on the border.

 

that said, given the implementation of a decent guest worker program, what benefit would there be to being an illegal? really none. but you have to bridge the time frame it takes to get that type of approach implemented. 5 years would be an aggressive estimate, 10 probably more realistic...

 

really though we do not have any other options at this point. it's long past time to stop investing in nation building in 4th world dump-holes and address some serious internal housekeeping issues....

 

edit to add: when on active duty and in the states we did "training ops" on both the southern border and in the national forests of cali....happens all the time.....no reason it could not be a day-to-day thing....tracking illegals is good recon and field skills training, especially at night......

Link to post
Share on other sites
not really sure where you are getting the first sentence....it would be my contention that if you are in the country illegally, then you do not rate to be a beneficiary of our laws, why is that such an alien concept ( no pun intended)......

 

Seems like my first sentence was spot on, as confirmed by the bolded part of your reply above. Can you provide ANY citation to existing law that states, in effect, that if you're here illegally 'you do not rate to be a beneficiary of our laws'? Because I can cite more than a few that say exactly the opposite, if you like.

 

The issue ain't with 'every mom and pop', by the way. There are one helluva lot of LARGE companies that are recruiting people in Mexico and Central America to make it past the Rio Grande whereupon they'll be employed throughout the country. And these people often are exploited in that the original terms offered are not delivered by the employer.

 

I agree that there are two sides to this issue and 'securing the border' is a piece of the solution to the problem. But so long as the demand-side persists, and is exploited in such flagrant and abusive ways, efforts to 'secure the border' are going to have about as much impact on illegal immigration as the billions and billions we've spent on 'the war on drugs' have had on the problem illegal drug importation into the U.S. : i.e., nill.

 

Seriously, how pragmatic is that?

 

 

 

ah yes, lets play parsing games with the word 'beneficiary'.....another red herring as you of course know exactly what i mean when i use that term.....

 

i agree large companies should be pounded, that's a no brainer.....but that's not where the bulk of the illegal immigrant population in this country is employed and you and i both know that....

 

 

exactly how do you propose to address the demand side of the equation? are you going to hire tens of thousands of federal workers to go out and root around in small business? 'cause if you aren't there's no way to enforce reporting requirements where most of the illegals are employed....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The military is supposed to break shit and kill people, or even better, threaten to break shit and kill people.

 

They are not a roving peace corps with guns. Border patrol with the army is bad for troops, bad for the mission, and puts us in a disadvantageous position on the day we need them to execute the mission.

 

The economics on this problem are empirical, they are going to keep coming until we change the economics.

 

I am clear that these people have broken laws. Maybe a better question is why do we have laws that don't work, or that the fed doesn't feel inclined to enforce. Fix the law and fix the govt. Guest worker program for every last one of them. NO fence, but a long repatriation process if they come over illegally, which would be stupid since green cards could be had for the asking. At that point, only tax evaders and drug smugglers would be crawling through the desert and defending against this with a heightened level of prejudice would be much simpler.

 

My differentiation is that citizenship would be a 7 year process, test in English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if obama and the D congress were smart, and that's a big if, they would resurrect the kennedy-kyl bill, take 5-7 divisions out of afghan/iraq and redploy them to the border to seal it, and fix this problem...it really is that simple. the problem is, that would take a metric shit ton of political courage that i dont think exists anywhere on either side of the aisle in DC...

 

 

How long are you going to keep those troops on the border?. Ten years?..Twenty?. Even that many troops can not seal the entire length of our southern border, there will be gaps. And the illegals will get on boats, and land in Texas and California north of the deployed troops. And the game will go on tying up resources in a futile effort to prevent that which can not be prevented. And that doesn't even take our northern border into account.

 

we have two issues going on right now with that border, one is the obvious immigration issue, the other is that mexico is arguably at this point not all that stable....we need to lock down that border...

 

and if 5-7 divisions isn't enough put 10 down there....and if they were there for 5-10 years so what. when we do not have active combat deployments going on they sit at other bases doing the same shit they would be doing on the border.

 

that said, given the implementation of a decent guest worker program, what benefit would there be to being an illegal? really none. but you have to bridge the time frame it takes to get that type of approach implemented. 5 years would be an aggressive estimate, 10 probably more realistic...

 

really though we do not have any other options at this point. it's long past time to stop investing in nation building in 4th world dump-holes and address some serious internal housekeeping issues....

 

edit to add: when on active duty and in the states we did "training ops" on both the southern border and in the national forests of cali....happens all the time.....no reason it could not be a day-to-day thing....tracking illegals is good recon and field skills training, especially at night......

 

You want to deploy essentially all of our combat troops on the border, in a policing mission that they are not trained for, for extended periods, while taking them away from the missions they are supposed to be doing and training for?. That is a recipe for disaster in so many ways.

 

Solve the demand problem. I don't really care whether it is through guest worker programs or wages or whatever else. Trying to seal the border will not work long term, no matter how many resources you throw at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah yes, lets play parsing games with the word 'beneficiary'.....another red herring as you of course know exactly what i mean when i use that term.....

 

i agree large companies should be pounded, that's a no brainer.....but that's not where the bulk of the illegal immigrant population in this country is employed and you and i both know that....

 

 

exactly how do you propose to address the demand side of the equation? are you going to hire tens of thousands of federal workers to go out and root around in small business? 'cause if you aren't there's no way to enforce reporting requirements where most of the illegals are employed....

 

Sorry, no intention to 'parse'.

 

The demand side is something that needs work, and frankly any attempt to hire 'tens of thousands of federal workers to go out and root around in small business' is likely to be about as effective (and expensive) as the hiring of tens of thousands of border patrol agents to the tune of an incremental $24 Billion/year has been, which is to say, marginally effective. The cash-only economy is a huge obstacle to effective enforcement of existing laws - we all know that. But to do nothing about that part of it and to just try to seal off the vacuum that is demand at the borders, well, IMHO, thats likely to be even less effective than a combined effort.

 

Do we want to try to solve the problem, or do we just want to try to ridicule Obama?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah yes, lets play parsing games with the word 'beneficiary'.....another red herring as you of course know exactly what i mean when i use that term.....

 

i agree large companies should be pounded, that's a no brainer.....but that's not where the bulk of the illegal immigrant population in this country is employed and you and i both know that....

 

 

exactly how do you propose to address the demand side of the equation? are you going to hire tens of thousands of federal workers to go out and root around in small business? 'cause if you aren't there's no way to enforce reporting requirements where most of the illegals are employed....

 

Sorry, no intention to 'parse'.

 

The demand side is something that needs work, and frankly any attempt to hire 'tens of thousands of federal workers to go out and root around in small business' is likely to be about as effective (and expensive) as the hiring of tens of thousands of border patrol agents to the tune of an incremental $24 Billion/year has been, which is to say, marginally effective. The cash-only economy is a huge obstacle to effective enforcement of existing laws - we all know that. But to do nothing about that part of it and to just try to seal off the vacuum that is demand at the borders, well, IMHO, thats likely to be even less effective than a combined effort.

 

Do we want to try to solve the problem, or do we just want to try to ridicule Obama?

 

the border is one part of the equation, meaningful immigration reform is the other...

 

a cashless society is simply not going to happen in our lifetimes......securing the border and implementing a rational guest worker and immigration process can happen right now if there was any political courage in DC

 

 

i note with interest you have so far ignored my reference to the kennedy-kyl legislation of 07. is that because it was put forth during the bush admin and actively supported by him?? do tell, because i find it odd that most people ignore that piece of legislation in all of this dialog, even more so as it was a pretty bipartisan effort, at least at first and until the crazies in both parties fucked it up...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i note with interest you have so far ignored my reference to the kennedy-kyl legislation of 07. is that because it was put forth during the bush admin and actively supported by him?? do tell, because i find it odd that most people ignore that piece of legislation in all of this dialog, even more so as it was a pretty bipartisan effort, at least at first and until the crazies in both parties fucked it up...

 

Candidly, I'm not that familiar with it, aside from the amnesty provision, which, indeed, sent people off the deep end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i note with interest you have so far ignored my reference to the kennedy-kyl legislation of 07. is that because it was put forth during the bush admin and actively supported by him?? do tell, because i find it odd that most people ignore that piece of legislation in all of this dialog, even more so as it was a pretty bipartisan effort, at least at first and until the crazies in both parties fucked it up...

 

Candidly, I'm not that familiar with it, aside from the amnesty provision, which, indeed, sent people off the deep end.

 

you can sum up that legislation with two words: missed opportunity

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...