It looks like something very close to the Spexie plan is coming to fruition in the Senate. Whether this can pass the House is another story.
The reinforcement of our borders is key, but easier said than done. I keep hearing this idea of a 700 mile fence. For some reason this strikes me as a not so hot idea. It just seems to me with the technology available today, there should be a better way????
Four days and no input, so my plan must be perfect! Just as I suspected.Originally Posted by Spexvet
So it shall be written - so it shall be done! :cheers:
In the late 1980's I worked with a number of groups on Capitol Hill on Immigration Reform. At that time, there were strict quotas on the number of European immigrants, especially from Ireland, the U.K. and almost all of Northern Europe. It was estimated that from Ireland alone there were half a million illegals. You could see tham every night at any Irish bar from DC to Boston. These were college educated kids, mostly in their early 20's.
Amnesty did not give them citizenship, but rather an extended period of time to become citizens.
My question is, if we grant amnesty or these 11 million, what do we do 5 years from now when there are 11 million more and so on........
I am all for granting citizenship...to those who have earned the right to be a citizen.
"Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde"
Exactly. Also didn't we provide amnesty in the 80s?
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
Well it seems to me there are 3 choices re current illegals:
-give them a path to documentation/citizenship
-do nothing
-ship them back from whence they came.
The beauty of #1 is that it beats #2 and #3.
I keep hearing people say variations of: "I have no problem giving them (or letting them earn) citizenship, but they have to go to the back of the line." Well this is one of those statements that on the surface sounds very reasonable, but on closer inspection is the opposite: the fact is given current immigration quotas, these illegals will be dead before that happens.
To quote Bart Simpson: "I carumba!!!":hammer:
Illegal Immigrants:
1. Should not suffer. Well, in a perfect world nobody should suffer, so kinda hard to disagree there.
2. Should not undercut wages for American jobs. As long as there are people willing to work for peanuts, peanuts is what they shall receive. However, I doubt that there are many hard working Americans of any ethnic heritage willing to work for low wages, so legalizing the immigrants in question would probably increase wages across the board. Of course prices will increase accordingly, but everyone gets to pay taxes!
3. Are necessary to the health of American business. Well, some businesses apparently think this is true. But that's because of #2 above - they can get away with paying peanuts. To the man who has no peanuts, they're good roasted, boiled or as peanut butter! Besides, if all the illegal Mexicans left this area, Home Depot and Walmart would go out of business!
4. Are difficult for American workers to compete against because they are willing to work for less than minimum wage with no benefits. Only in certain jobs (manual labor mostly). There was a story locally where a firm sent some local guys out to do post-hurricane cleanup, and before long the contractors sent them home because the Mexicans had arrived and would work for less.
5. Sap our tax dollars by receiving government benefits. No comment.
6. Just shouldn't be allowed in, on principle. It sounds too simple, but they are breaking the law. If we need to reconsider how many people can legally enter this country, fine. But it's a slap in the face to others who are trying to come here and become citizens to give any preference to those who have already shown a disregard for our laws.
7. Would be welcome, if they paid taxes. Paying taxes is only part of being a good citizen, but it's certainly better than living here and not paying them!
8. Should be deported. If they are caught, yes. But how easy will it be to catch millions of illegals. "Hey, you've got brown skin - let me see your papers! Oh, sorry Dr. Hernandez, thought you were an illegal alien. Um... happy Cinco de Mayo!"
9. Should be killed. Seriously, has this been suggested? You've got to stop visiting those far-right websites, Spex.
10. Are OK, they're just trying to support their families. Most of them are probably nice, hard-working, good people - except for #6 above.
11. Are draining money from the American economy, when then send money home. Hey, we send billions overseas all the time to countries that hate us a lot more than the Mexicans do - and at least they're willing to work for it!
12. Should be stopped at the border by the border patrol. Either that, or do away with the Border Patrol if they're not going to do what their name suggests.
The way I see it, there should be no one here in this country illegally. Realistically, you can't send all the ones that are here back. So as much as I hate the idea of amnesty it's the only way to achieve (theoretically) getting everything above the table. We should enforce the border as much as possible, penalize employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants - whether it's a hotel corporation or a two-man landscaping company. If an illegal needs food, clothing or medical attention by all means help, but no one (illegal or not) should collect a check from the gov't simply because they are here.
If that fails, we can annex Mexico.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear brighter before you hear them speak.
Remember this?
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...ghlight=mexico
Vaguely - that was, like, last year! :D
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear brighter before you hear them speak.
When we were working on the Immigration Reform Act, the amnesty that was part of the act was a blanket amnesty to cover not only Western Eurpoeans, but Asians and Latinos as well. This would have been around 1988 if I remember correctly.
"Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/03/mil...ion/index.html
Not just any relative, but the wife of a US serviceman. How outrageous is it that the wife of a US serviceman faces deportation under these circumstances?Eduardo Gonzalez, a petty officer second class with the U.S. Navy, is about to be deployed overseas for a third time. Making his deployment even tougher is the fact his wife may not be around when he comes back.
His wife faces deportation to Guatemala -- her home country that she hasn't seen since 1989. He also doesn't know what would happen to his young son, Eduardo Jr., if that happens.
[snip]
A judge in June granted her a one-year extension to remain in the United States. If her legal status does not change by June 8, 2008, she will have 60 days to voluntarily leave the country or face deportation.
That's just fine, according to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.
"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."
I was on active duty from 1961 – 1969. We had a number of LEGAL aliens serving in the USMC and all were granted citizenship upon completion of their enlistments unless something has changed. If Eduardo is here legally and was legally married to his wife then all is well and this is just some misreported piece of news.
However, if Eduardo is a wetback he may not serve in the US military, in fact, he is in violation of the UCMJ and subject to a court martial.
Let’s hear all of the facts before we make a rush to judgment. Citations are helpful.
Regarding citations, I did provide the link to the article. Should there be a dispute to the factual accuracy of what was reported, Gonzalez's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee can be found here: http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdf...alez070906.pdf It appears that Gonzalez was married in 2004 while in the Navy but prior to his obtaining citizenship in 2005. It also appears that his wife would have been granted citizenship within months if he had not married her. For Mark Krikorian to call this an outrageous example of amnesty is a little over the top.
rbaker and chip- don't miss this meeting!
"A bargain is something you can't use at a price you can't resist."
Franklin Jones.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks