did I miss the part about enforcing existing laws that prohibit hiring illegal immigrants - ?

troll

It is a plan which is comprehensive, fair and practical.

Moreover, it was damn near the only plan he could possibly endorse without either skirting the issue entirely, or going militaristic and severely damaging relations with Mexico.

I found Bush's plan reasonable. And as you well know, I ain't no fan.

Of course, as I said on that other thread, it's his usual fan club members that are foaming-at-the-mouth mad at him after that speech...

Troll, I think he attempted to address that by trying to make it easier for employers to verify status. I'm with you, without that, the rest of this is just talk.

Dave, I have to go with you on this one--I don't agree that Bush is "at heart" (or usually) a rational moderate, but I am comfortable with his position on this. That said, I want to see more than lip service paid to the employer side. It's going to take some regulation, which of course goes counter to Republican tendencies.

Ironically, the employer side of this is the one part I don't agree with in the Bush plan. The problem with it is that the mechanism for this improved enforcement and tracking of workers is an ID system which will inevitably apply to all Americans, not just immigrants, and I don't see any benefit in high-tech tracking of the activities and identities and monetary transactions of day to day citizens. It's an undesirable intrusion on our lives and a REAL violation of every one of our rights far more serious than the silly NSA data gathering everyone is up in arms about.

But JP, Bush is and has always been a moderate. You've mistaken his manipulation of the far right for actually sharing their beliefs.

Dave

The problem with it is that the mechanism for this improved enforcement and tracking of workers is an ID system which will inevitably apply to all Americans, not just immigrants

Suppose they made it such that these IDs would only be available at U.S. embassies on foreign soil?

Michael, they're already planning to make them required for all citizens. This plan pre-exists the immigration bill.

The first step is the National ID standardization, but immigration is going to be used as a justification for moving from that into the RealID/Smartcard system which keeps electronic track of the use of the ID and monitors your activities for a central database.

Dave

I knew there was something alarming about the "biometric ID" thing. Problems with immigration do not a police state justify.

I see your point--but I'm at least happy he's willing to acknowledge the employer side of the equation. The solution could be a better one--maybe I should've said I'm comfortable with his "approach" since he's trying to address all aspects of the issue.

"I knew there was something alarming about the "biometric ID" thing. Problems with immigration do not a police state justify."

Mike, the biometric ID is on its way along with the police state. It will come with or without congressional approval. It is already under active consideration in Europe and a simple version of it is alrady used on pets.

If we follow the patten currently being tried out with pets it will go beyond even my fears, as they are having tracking chips implanted in them which are part of a technology which allows monitoring of all sorts of information about movements and activities in great detail.

The day the government plans to put microchips in its citizens is the day I resort to force of arms for political change.

Dave

"The day the government plans to put microchips in its citizens is the day I resort to force of arms for political change."


Then start storing food and water, Dave, lots of it, and start oiling your guns.

Already on it, Ruvy. As a matter of principle.

Dave

You know what this conversation needs? Randy Weaver.

We have to be realistic about identification. The issue now is that it is too easy to fake identification. In spite of all of our concerns, we have national ID anyway. You can't do anything in this country without 2 or 3 forms of ID: Driver's license or picture ID, Social Security # and/or credit card. Other than religious belief, there is no real reason to oppose an ID card. If you want to oppose something important, oppose a database that has private information in it related to the ID card.

You're right, Michael. Any conversation is improved by the introduction of key words that get out on the search engines like Randy Weaver, Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Dave

President Bush didn't come right out and say it, but what he's offering -- and you're supporting -- is A-M-N-E-S-T-Y.

In other words, he's still selling the same damned snake oil he's been peddling since his first inauguration. He's still dedicated to the abolition of America.

Why a $2000 fine? Why not a fine commenserate with the administrative costs associated with that particular process. It would release tax dollars.

I wouldn't go so far as making it tax deductable however, I have seen stranger things in government.

Nickysicky, if u got fined $2000 for your dog pooping in a neighbor's yard would u feel like you got amnesty or got punished?

A lot of genuine crimes are punished by fines and it's the right kind of punishment for a nonviolent crime.

Anyone who calls a hefty fine on a poor working person amnesty likely has other issues with mexicans. And yes, based on your other posts I am calling u a racist nicky.

Shark flips thru the TV channels looking for the NBA playoffs, lands on a shifty-looking, beady-eyed snake oil salesman/Apolcalyptic Right-Wing --Possibly Pederast-- Preacher yakkin' some major bullshit and tryin' to sell a pretty placebo to a nation of paranoid xenophobic illiterate morons:

"...Ma fellow 'mericuns. I don't wanna talk about Bin Laden or Iraq or the Gazillion dollar deficit or gas prices or the polluted, diabetic, asthmatic $8 an hour futures of your kids. Nope. Look, over there! Buncha tough guys in camo lined up every 520 yards across the Mexican desert! Yee-haw!"

Then...


...Shark peeks into his old hangout, (Blogcritics, aka "Dave's Delusional Dungeon") --- and notes Davey Nalle still sporting a short little literary mini-skirt and waving red-white-and-blue digital pom-poms (courtesy of Halliburton, $666 per pom, thankyouverymuch...) while paying delusional, half-assed, half-hearted homage to our retarded, facist, brain-dead motard of a President via his standard bloated blather -- which, in almost every case -- can be thought of as continuous figurative, garrulous blow-job given to Prez Bush in the name of Patriotism and Libertarian Ideals.

Nalle has the unenviable task of supporting the most insane, facist, law-breaking, civil-liberties ignoring President in American history -- while at the same time, trying to maintain the posture of an entreprenurial Libertarian with a capital L.

6000 national guard on the border.

Mission Accomplished.

heh.





PS: Dave, I'd like to point out that SHARK AND THE DIXIE CHICKS WERE RIGHT ON IRAQ. hehehehehe.

PPS: How many Americans killed today over there?

xxoo
S

Lumpdumpy: the fine is not amnesty, stupid. Amnesty is getting rewarded with citizenship for bypassing all the very costly and time-cosuming bureaucratic hassles that people trying to do it legally are willing to submit themselves to.

Among other qualifications which these illegal border jumpers get to have waived, are those considerations of skill level by which legal immigrants from every other country are required to be screened - as well as considerations having to do with the sheer NUMBER of people who can be accomodated from any one country.

Giving them legal status as guest workers is perfectly fine. But they don't have to be rewarded with a citizenship for which they would not even qualify if they were to try and come in through the legal immigration channels.

They should be given the oppportunity to work here for a specified period of time, after which they must return to their home countries. And if they are found trying to come back in, prior to the expiriation of some specified waiting period that must elapse between successive visits, then they will be banned for life.

NicStix is right, this plan includes a modified amnesty. It has lots of enticing gingerbread attached, but I fear it is the same kind of witch's cottage that Reagan okayed in the 80s: promises of enforcement and a plan to forgive lawbreaking as a path to citizenship.

Only if we actually GET the enforcement (and not the watered-down, largely-ignored nod in its direction as happened with the Reagan-era program) will the "substantial fines" and other requirements for amnesty make any sense at all.

Nothing will work in the short run until we deport thousands and even millions of illegals. Nothing will work in the long run until the corrupt government in Mexico City is overthrown.

Nice to see you back, Shark. Your verbal frothing is, as always, inimitable.

But if Herr Nickstix and Comrade Bliffle agree that we need to purge the country of the illegals then I'm pretty confident I'm on the right side in pursuing a moderate solution along with Pres. Bush.

Dave

50,000,000 illegals living in the border states alone? I live in Texas and I can tell you that the public schools here are not only expanded with two and three new wings, but also with portables.

If you just took the numbers from the schools alone in the border states you will find that we could have up to 50 million illegals in this country. THey are lying about the numbers people. We have tens of millions of Latinos in this country. Remember they are uncounted except in the schools...but counting or asking about status in this country will get you a coup de grace on any job.

In San Antonio alone there are entire school districts that are nothing but Mexicans. Here in North Texas the whites have fled the schools and even many blacks are moving to better schools. That leaves entire schools here that are all Mexican and most of them are from Illegal alien families. We've got a million plus school age children alone that have illegal status here in Texas.

They are bringing in drugs with their huge families. If they were coming here just for jobs why the drug trafficing?

Bush's approval drops as the true number of illegal aliens and its impact become clearer. I've been saying what Biffle said from day one. We don't need biometrics we need to send some millions of those fuckers back to where they came from. Including those from Asian countries that are here illegally.

Heloise

"...belief that President Bush is at heart a rational moderate..."

Well, that's what I thought pre-2000, but subsequent policies proved me wrong: budget busting, egregious invasions, etc. And overall a generally lackadaisical approach towards his job, which DOES deserve ones full attention.

Hey, at least I recognize when I made a bad decision: I'm not going to defend it to the death.

I think Bush is still that moderate we knew him to be before 2000, it's just that he's been warped by the office and the compromises it requires and mislead by his advisors. When left to make decisions on his own he's still going to pursue that middle course as he demonstrates with this issue.

Dave

Heloise, you seem to think that anyone who moves to Texas is an illegal. The public schools are growing because of immigration from within the US, not so much because of illegals. Texas is one of the fastest growing states for people to move to from other states because of our low unemployment and low cost of living relative to wages paid.

Even the most radical don't believe in a figure like your 50 million illegals. And the census has researched the actual figures, using the schools and other sources and come up with a very believable and substantiated figure of about 12 million. It might be slightly higher than that, but 50 million is ridiculous.

Dave

If I wanted someone in the white house who'd look the other way while millions of ilegals stream across the border I would have voted for Kerry.

Bush's plan is a non-plan. A few thousand national guard troops on the border? Whoopty friggin doo!

Temporary guest worker plan? Yeah further advantages for wetbacks over Americans in the job market.


Path to citizenship for illegals all really here? Yeah you broke the law so we're going to reward you for it.

This so called plan is nothing but Bush trying to bolster his poll numbers by paying lip service to his base regarding the wetback situation. Well I ain't havin any!

Fuck Bush. Fuck his plan.

Until any politician gets serious about this and starts making suggestions that will actually work such as placing the military on the border with shoot to kill orders, imposing extremely stiff penalties on employers hiring wetbacks, deporting wetbacks by the thousand every day at their own expense by having our government confiscating and liquidating any personal belongings of said wetbacks, assassinating Vincente Fox and any other Mexican interloper of note that stands in our way, and/or invading Mexico.....they can all kiss my ass.

On this issue there is no difference between Ted Kennedy and George Bush. Now that's the scary truth and it sucks.

It's time for the minutmen and thier brethren to step up their game and start forcing the hand of those bastards on capital hill.

Biometrics Security and Illegal Immigration

The speech was very clear: from now on, any foreigner willing to go legally in the United States in order to work there will have to communicate his fingerprints while entering the country.They will have to subject themselves to these procedures, formerly only imposed to criminals and to spies, not to immigrants and visitors, and even less to citizens.

Indeed, Bush said in his addresses on Immigration Reform:

"A key part of that system [for verifying documents and work eligibility of aliens] should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof."

The proposal launched by president Bush to deploy the National Guard at the Mexican border and to introduce sophisticated electronic devices is only part of a brilliant communication strategy. Its actual function is not to protect the border, but to direct public attention far from the true reform set in motion by the Bush Administration: biometric security.

Read more on my magmareport.net site.

"...it's just that he's been warped by the office and the compromises it requires and mislead by his advisors."

True. But a man with stronger deeper character, from struggle, loss, recovery and the rueful knowledge thereby, would have been able to handle it. But he's always been protected from consequences, as he is now.

Character counts.

If people don't see this transparent ploy to shift the public discussion away from the things slaughtering the republicans in the polls right now, then they are so naive as to get what they deserve.

Unfortunately it is our nation, and our descendants, who will not only pay the financial bill for this administrations failed policies, but who will suffer under a police state, monitored by both the government and the corporation the government works for.

As the Pravda rolls on, I highly advise everyone to take the advice given by the "Brain" gremlin and put all your assets into canned goods and shotguns. One thing to add, kill your phone.

I genuinely don't understand the problems that people have with allowing illegals who've been here for five years to get on the road to citizenship.

They are NOT being rewarded. They are being punished. The plan includes punitive damages for violating the law and paying all back taxes. Once that's done, it's the same as filling a judge's sentence: they did the crime AND the time.

So what's the problem with their then getting in line BEHIND the people who went through the proper legal channels?

Bear in mind that the illegals who have NOT been here for five years--the ones we send back--will then be able to try and get back into the U.S. by going through the proper channels. And they don't have to pay the fines and the taxes. So you might say that they're getting a better deal than those who are getting the so-called "amnesty"!

My problem with it, Michael, is that you have folks who have been waiting on line for YEARS to get into the country legally.

The illegals you are talking about would be cutting in front of the line.

I don't like the idea, on principle, for rewarding people who broke the law, for 5 years or more, by letting them cut in front of the people who have done everything according to the rules.

No, Heckler. Did you not see or read the speech? What is the deal with all the people like you and Heloise and Bliffle who have no idea what was in the speech, yet feel free to criticize elements that weren't there. Bush clearly said - and it's restated in this article - that those who had been here illegally would go to the back of the line when applying for citizenship. They're not being rewarded, they're being PUNISHED, even though they might deserve some sort of reward for their loyalty to this country and the work they have done here.

Dave

Dave he should've stuck with just point One. After that I think he lost his ultra conservative base.

Dave, I did watch it, and the proof will be in the pudding.

Question, do those illegals get to stay in the country? Answer, yes. Does that mean they can go on reaping the benefits of being in the country when they entered illegally, merely because they go taway with it for 5 years or more?

Yes.

Do you consider that fair when there are plenty of good people who are following the rules still waiting to get into the country in the first place while these illegals are already here?

The card you and the administration are trying to palm is the simple fact that these illegals GET TO STAY in the country while "going to the back of the line" while those following the rules are still waiting in their country of origin for their turn in line.

Nice try, but hopefully the american people don't fall for more of this kind of lies and deception.

I agree with Heckler, good point.

No Dave. They don't just need to go to the BACK of the line. They need to not be allowed in the line at all. Immigrants from every other country except Mexico are required to be S-C-R-E-E-N-E-D. They will only be considered for citizenship if they have requisite SKILL levels, and then only in numbers that can be REASONABLY accomodated. The fact that Mexican border jumpers can be EXEMPTED from these considerations, which apply to every other country in the world, is JUST AS BAD as being allowed to literally cut into the front of the line!!!

Michael West doesn't see the problem people have with letting illegals who have been here for five years or more become citizens.....


Michael claims they are going to be forced to pay punitive damages and back taxes.


Does anyone really believe that they will actually be forced to pay back taxes?

Does anyone actually think they will pay back anything near the level of monetary fines that they have cost this nation?

If someone breaks in yoour house do they have the right to stay there after they have paid a fine Micahel?

Were you one of the people screaming about "rule of law" and how the domestic spying program violated it Michael? Because if you were you should also have a problem with the illegals who violate the rule of law?

They ARE being rewarded Michael. They came here illegally, stayed here for years illegally, collected income without paying taxes, recieved healthcare for which they didn't pay, violated numerous other laws, and you think the government's bogus claim that they will be forced to pay back taxes and monetary fines and then become citizens makes it ok?

It's horseshit and if you can't smell it you better make an appointment with an ear, nose, and throat specialist Michael.

Hey Arch, now turn that razor like critique towards the author of this post. It woudl be fun to read you and Dave go at it.

And yes, I am one of those who screamed rule of law, for BOTH things.

neener neener neener, nyah nyah!

So then how come nobody seems to mind when the illegal immigrants are political refugees from Cuba who have not been formally granted asylum? THOSE people, of course, need not worry about being illegal, because they're escaping political oppression.

So those of you who support all illegals being immediately deported, never to return, are you including Cuban refugees? They have to go back to Castro with no chance of amnesty, right?

Bing, I have to hand it to you. Contrary to most stereotypes of "arch conservatives," you are clearly no kind of Christian, evangelical or otherwise.

Since when does being a Christian mean that you must let others screw you over Michael?

I'm not a christian but maybe you are Michael? Are you pro-abortion? Are you pro-gay marriage?

Do you wanna cherry pick some more issues and relate them to christianty to prove your bullshit assertion that my lack of compassion means I'm not a christian in your eyes?

I realize that the reason many Mexicans come here illegally due to extreme poverty in their own nation. I do have compassion for a man who cannot afford to feed his children so he comes here illegally for the hopes of the means to do so. However when that man comes here illegally he is not just getting money for his family. He is also getting free healthcare which makes my healthcare and that of my children more expensive. He is using the roads that I pay taxes along with other legals to maintain while he does not. He is driving without a license or insurance while I must pay for both. He is earning tax free income. He may be recieiving government housing or financial assistsance. etc...etc...etc.....

He's screwing me and you and every other law abiding legal American Michael. So yes his life may have sucked in Mexico but that does not make it right for himt o screw me and you over.

The world's not fair. Life's not fair and it never will be Michael. I'm ok with that. While I have compassion for the misfortunes that befall others it does not consume my life. It does not fill me with guilt.

I am not out to screw anyone over but my main priority will ALWAYS be the welfare of myself and my friends and family and if i can help anyone else when these needs are met I try to do so.
that's the way I live my life and if you have a problem with that Michael that's too damn bad.

He's screwing me and you and every other law abiding legal American Michael. So yes his life may have sucked in Mexico but that does not make it right for himt o screw me and you over.

Again, does that apply to Cubans?

Michael, big difference between the status of a political refugee who has applied for asylum, and an illegal alien who snuck across the border and stands at a bus stop waiting for day labor.

Is there, Heckler? The Cubans are coming here by the same means as the Mexicans: they're sneaking into the country, just on boats instead of on foot. And they are also coming in by the hundreds and the thousands to take jobs and housing and tax dollars in America. And since 1995, a majority of Cuban refugees don't apply for political asylum--they are automatically granted it by virtue of their nation of origin.

Nope, you make a valid point. But do notice the difference I pointed out.

One group applies for political asylum. The other does not. That application for asylum places you "in line" as it were, for citizenship.

If such is not the case, then they are just as illegal, but the Cuban community is a bit smarter than that, and they do apply legally.

Compare that population to the Haitians that try and come here. It ain't as easy to get past the Coast Guard as you appear to imply, far easier to get in over land, as the Mexican nationals do.

Either way, the bottom line is doing the paperwork legally, or not.

Pretty simple.

Yes Michael that goes for cubans too. it goes for the Irish, French, German, Italian, Asians,.......anyone who does it illegally and screws the system over and over.

That clear enough for you?

What I don't understand is why you're ok with being screwed over by this lot.

because we're so used to being screwed over by your lot?

I listened in vain to the Bush speech, looking for some indication that he was going to lean on Fox to reform the corrupt mexican government. Alas.

An omnibus response to the festival of ignorance and bigotry:

Dave he should've stuck with just point One. After that I think he lost his ultra conservative base.

Yes, well fuck them.

Question, do those illegals get to stay in the country? Answer, yes. Does that mean they can go on reaping the benefits of being in the country when they entered illegally, merely because they go taway with it for 5 years or more?

Yes.

And why is this a problem? We need them here to work. If they want to do their waiting to qualify for citizenship here on a work visa helping our economy, what the hell is wrong with that?

Do you consider that fair when there are plenty of good people who are following the rules still waiting to get into the country in the first place while these illegals are already here?

Plenty of those other people who are waiting are also here on work visas or student visas. There's no rule that says they have to stay out of the US until they qualify for citizenship that would be ridiculous.

And your use of the term 'good people' is offensive. Undocumented aliens are for the most part ALSO good, hard working people.

The card you and the administration are trying to palm is the simple fact that these illegals GET TO STAY in the country while "going to the back of the line" while those following the rules are still waiting in their country of origin for their turn in line.

Except, of course, that this is not true. There are no restrictions on those applying for citizenship from outside the country which would keep them from using all the same means to come here and work and live legally while waiting to qualify.

No Dave. They don't just need to go to the BACK of the line. They need to not be allowed in the line at all. Immigrants from every other country except Mexico are required to be S-C-R-E-E-N-E-D.

Again, did you not see the speech? Did you not read this article. They WILL be screened. Bush said it specificially. The undesirable ones will be ejected and the good ones get to stay.

They will only be considered for citizenship if they have requisite SKILL levels, and then only in numbers that can be REASONABLY accomodated. The fact that Mexican border jumpers can be EXEMPTED from these considerations, which apply to every other country in the world, is JUST AS BAD as being allowed to literally cut into the front of the line!!!

Except, of course, that NONE of what you are saying here is correct. This stuff is just leaping out of your fevered and hate filled brain because it is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what Bush actually said. I refer you to the White House fact sheet which summarizes his speech. It quotes from the speech:

" Those who meet our conditions should be able to apply for citizenship - but approval will not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law."

Plus read the section on ending 'catch and release'. It should allay a lot of your fears. It's specifically focused on making sure that the bad aliens don't get back into circulation.

Michael claims they are going to be forced to pay punitive damages and back taxes.

Actually, President Bush claims that.

Does anyone really believe that they will actually be forced to pay back taxes?

They might in some cases. I don't see it as a major issue, really. Many of them have paid a great deal of tax for many years with few of the benefits. It balances out.

Does anyone actually think they will pay back anything near the level of monetary fines that they have cost this nation?

What does it cost our nation not to have massive inflation because of a labor shortage? Seems like a benefit to the nation to me.

you should also have a problem with the illegals who violate the rule of law?

Illegals don't violate the 'rule of law', they violate a specific law. That law can be changed and their past violation can be dealt with in any of a number of ways. That process is part of the 'rule of law'.

They ARE being rewarded Michael. They came here illegally, stayed here for years illegally, collected income without paying taxes,

You can't generalize and say they paid no taxes. They all paid sales taxes and many of them also had employer-paid taxes taken out of their earnings.

recieved healthcare for which they didn't pay,

Again, you can't generalize this way. Not every illegal immigrant gets free healthcare or even has a need for healthcare.

violated numerous other laws,

Again, an invalid generalization. Only a tiny number of them violate other laws, and no one is suggesting keeping those criminals in the country.

and you think the government's bogus claim that they will be forced to pay back taxes and monetary fines and then become citizens makes it ok?

What it is, is fair. It may not be full restitution, it may not be perfect, but it's perfectly within the government's rights to determine what is a fair penalty, charge it and then let them get on about their business.

Dave

Although Shark doesn't give a flying fuck about the illegal Messicun problem (my opinion is that if they want the fuckin' country, let 'em have it), but in order to raise the "entertainment" level in this drab, piece of shit "discussion" among xenophobic nutbars and over-zealous Bush defenders that are sorta soundin' kinda way too "liberal" for their own good -- I must point out the disparity between this week's "Blogcritics Bulwer Lytton Award Nominee" and its author's self-professed credentials:

=========

Worst Opening of the Week goes to Dave Nalle for:

"Confirming many of us in our belief..."

"Dave Nalle has worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and a history professor."

...and he never lies, makes a mistake, or exaggerates.


Now back to your regularly scheduled fantasy law-making national smoke-screen.

What I don't understand is why you're ok with being screwed over by this lot.

Because I understand that the tax dollars and other resources it would take to round up, export, and permanently keep out 11 million people will be far more of a drain on our economy and my wallet than will letting them stay.

"Because I understand that the tax dollars and other resources it would take to round up, export, and permanently keep out 11 million people will be far more of a drain on our economy and my wallet than will letting them stay."

Well no shit but despite that fact you display a total lack of any animosity toward these people.

How's this for an idea then Michael.

Instead of using tax dollars to deport them we liquidate all the personal assets that they have when we determine that they are ilegal and use that money to deport them.

Are yous o broken hearted for these poor people that you'd oppose this idea?

I like my idea better, Arch. We fine the employers what it costs to send the illegals, their families and their stuff back to their country of origin.

2 birds with one stone.

over-zealous Bush defenders that are sorta soundin' kinda way too "liberal" for their own good

Shark, as you should know by now I'm a classical liberal and I've always been for the version of Bush which believes in stuff like rational immigration law and not for the crazier hardline version pushed by his handlers.

-- I must point out the disparity between this week's "Blogcritics Bulwer Lytton Award Nominee" and its author's self-professed credentials:

"Dave Nalle has worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and a history professor."

...and he never lies, makes a mistake, or exaggerates.

I don't believe I've ever claimed any of the last three, but I certainly don't lie in articles I write or exaggerate for any purpose other than legitimate use of hyperbole. Mistakes happen, of course. As to my 'credentials', if you have a problem with them I guess I could add movie theater usher, receptionist, camp counselor, electrician's apprentice and data entry clerk - but those ones didn't seem terribly sexy.

Dave

Arch, why don't we just kill the parents and sell the children into slavery in Saudia Arabia?

Dave

C'mon Dave...isn't that a little extreme?

But seriously what is wrong with seizing and liquidating the ILLEGAL personal assetes of these people in order to fund their deportation?

It seems like if you guys just want to keep on coddling them and ignore their transgressions.

Well no shit but despite that fact you display a total lack of any animosity toward these people.

That's because I don't feel any animosity towards them. Contrary to what you seem to think, Bing, 99.9% of illegals are not:

-evil.
-hardened criminals.
-Sub-human.
-America-haters.
-Dead set on reclaiming the American southwest as part of Mexico (despite what Michelle Malkin and Nicholas Stix say).

They are, instead, very poor people in one of the world's poorest nations who are so desperate to build a better life that they'll come to America however they have to.

And once they get here they take substandard wages and frequently live in substandard conditions, just like they did back home...except with the added bonus of living in constant fear that the INS will find them and send them back where they came from.

So you're right, Bing. I don't have any animosity towards them. I think they've created a problem in America, sure, but I don't think (as you seem to) that they did so maliciously, and I don't think (as you seem to) that they're amoral monsters with no regard for American society. I'm not sure, if I was in their shoes, that I wouldn't do the same thing.

And frankly, Bing, I'm not sure you wouldn't, either.

P.S. Remember, illegal immigrants get hired in the U.S. because they'll work for less than the minimum wage. How much money do you think you'd get per person if you seized and liquidated their ILLEGAL personal assets? Not even enough to buy them a bus ticket to the border.

An omnibus response to the festival of ignorance and bigotry

You certainly do come across as an arrogant son of a bitch. Stick with discussing the facts, and stop already with your own never-ending "festival" of name calling and vainglorious self-congratulation.

You quote from Bush's speech:

"Those who meet our conditions should be able to apply for citizenship - but approval will not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law."

That's very reassuring, Dave. So if all these 12 million (probably more like 20 million) Mexicans are going to have to play by the same rules as, let's say India does, then nearly ALL of them will be washed out and denied American citizenship due to the SKILL LEVEL screening which assures that half the population of Casablanca won't be allowed to flood the United States with all those "very poor people in one of the world's poorest nations who are so desperate to build a better life that they'll come to America however they have to." (to quote Michael J. West).

Right! Somehow I think Bush has a cozier relationship with Vicente Fox than he does with Dr. Manmohan Singh. And so Mexico WILL continue to be given preferential treatment and placed, as a nation, IN FRONT OF THE LINE, ahead of every other country on the planet.

And so Mexico WILL continue to be given preferential treatment and placed, as a nation, IN FRONT OF THE LINE, ahead of every other country on the planet.

Except Cuba.

i don't think bing even cares to think it through. he just hates the mexicans. who i'm sure really really bother him in new fucking hampshire or whatever white-bread hobunk 1-stoplight town he lives in.

I'm with zingzing. What I see when I reqd most of what's on here is xenophobia and racism. Brodie is particularly bad but arch con isn't far behind. Why shouldn't we give mexicans a bit of a break on immigrating? They're our friends and neighbors and they have a hell of a lot of oil too. We need peons and they produce them. Bringing them here just makes sense.

On emor etime , for those in the cheap seats.

ILLEGAL

There you have it, now run along.

so is jaywalking. you ever done that? then fuck off.

illegal or not, it happens. and there is no easy, humane solution to handle it.

stop trying to make this into a black and white issue. it's not.

Why shouldn't we give mexicans a bit of a break on immigrating?

Nice! At last an outright admission that it is perfectly OK to let illegal Mexican aliens crowd in front of everyone else on the planet trying to immigrate here LEGALLY.

What I see when I read most of what's on here is xenophobia and racism.

And what I see on here is a form of racism that can only be called Mexiphilia, along of course with legiphobia - the idea that if you think a law is bad then you should be able to ignore it with impunity, rather than tring to get it changed first.

Brodie is particularly bad

Awfully sorry, Lumpy, that I have to shine so much light onto the pollyanna "Mexicans are wonderful poeple" line designed to divert attention away from the fact that there are 5 billion other poor "wonderful" people in the world, and thereby prevent people from thinking about just HOW MANY of these "huddled masses" we can accomodate as new citizens in any given year, month, day, hour, minute, or second, without destroying the American economy, culture, way of life, and standard of living.

Hey zing, you fuck off, I'm a law abiding citizen until proven differently in a court of law.

But there is a simple and humane answer, annex Mexico! Make it a state, give them 2 senators and the approprite amount of congressmen.

How's that?

you mean the white one, richard? multi-culturalism isn't a bad thing.

ok... let's say the american economy tanks. i mean totally goes down the tubes. are you saying you wouldn't walk right up to canada, go in, and live/work in a place where you can survive in some respectible way?

here you say: "if i did, i would do it legally."

okay, let's say that some other people (like millions) have got the same exact idea that you do and the canadian government tells you that you have to wait years before you will even be considered for citizenship.

so, you look at your life here (utter shit), and then you see all those fancy-free canadians with their cars and their two garages, and their bank accounts and their beer hats and snowmen, then you look at your life again, all poverty and disease and dirt floors.

but them damn canadians won't let you (legally) get a job! you want a car! you want a beer hat!

so, you just go. fuck em. maybe you don't get everything you want, but at least it's better than what you came from. almost anything would be.

and don't tell me you wouldn't. you'd be a canadian before your nipples stiffened up.

heckler, you fuckin know that that is stupid.

Amen, zingzing. Truest comment made on this article yet.

what, that heckler knows he's being silly, or that richard is a hypocrite? or that canadians have hard nipples?

zing: multi-culturalism isn't a bad thing

If you really wanted to preserve the cultural differences you pretend to value so highly (and which I do honestly value) you would realize that your version of "multi-culturalism" is the worst possible thing.

Your version of multi-culturalism - namely the homogenization of different races and cultures within the same geographical area (nation) - will ultimately and inexorably lead to the obliteration of all diversity, ESPECIALLY in the context of a highly centralized Federalistic political system like ours that seeks to impose nationwide uniform standards, laws, regulations, etc.

My version of "multiculturalism", on the other hand, recognizes that the same social conditions that were necessary to GIVE RISE to a diversity of cultures and races in the first place, will also be necessary for the PRESERVATION of a diverse cultural and racial human landscape - namely the restriction of races and cultures to demographically insulated regions. And I'm not talking about some externally imposed restriction administered by some global authority, but rather a sensible, isolationist policy emanating from within a people having a healthy racial and cultural self-pride.

And here I'm talking about the kind of self-pride which impels the Mexicans to resist allowing their culture to be overrun, either by poor people coming in across their southern borders, or by rich American businessmen coming in across their northern borders.

As far as your ridiculous Canadian scenario, I would only ask you what happens when the Canadian economy turns to crap under invasionary immigration pressure? Do we all then head for Greenland? Better we just put a stop right now to the ThirdWorldization of America.

richard: "the restriction of races and cultures to demographically insulated regions"

isn't that called... segregation?

"what happens when the Canadian economy turns to crap under invasionary immigration pressure?"

hmm. i don't know. why don't we see if ours crumbles under the horrific cheap labor scourge. seems to be doing okay so far. do you predict that a massive influx of immigrants will destroy our economy? do you see any historical evidence for that?

isn't that called... segregation?

Exactly. And to paraphrase you: "segregation isn't a bad thing"

do you predict that a massive influx of immigrants will destroy our economy? do you see any historical evidence for that?

Rome.

"segregation isn't a bad thing"

what? first of all, i never said anything like that. so you aren't paraphrasing me... you're sticking a different word in front of a phrase i used. and second, what?

rome, eh... i thought that was the barbarian invasion and them stretching their military and infrastructure too far to maintain... but i will look up whether or not there was immigration into rome, and what effect it produced... still...

let's see some evidence from modern times... you know, like after the plague or something.

Dave says: Again, did you not see the speech? Did you not read this article. They WILL be screened. Bush said it specificially. The undesirable ones will be ejected and the good ones get to stay.

But I'm quite sure that by "undesirable" he merely means not criminally inclined, overtly seditious, etc. I'm certain that NONE of the tens of millions of Mexicans in question will be held to the same SKILL LEVEL requirements that applicants from every other third world country are, precisely in order to prevent half of their populations from being let in.

In other words Mexico will be escorted to the the front of the line, ahead of respectful people from ALL OTHER COUNTRIES, by being given a special discriminatory exemption from requirements imposed on those who have NOT thumbed their noses at our immigration law and have not violated our borders, i.e. our national sovereignty.

actually, it looks like immigration is what kept rome alive for so long. rome supported itself by conquering other lands. rome supported its military by offering citizenship to any immigrants who would fight for rome.

Interesting (however much I agree with the argument that "illegal immigrants should not be given a pass to the front of the legalization line") that economic arguments against condoning illegal-immigrant labor echo wierdly the arguments against outsourcing labor.

"Artificially depress wages" - Yep, whether the cheap foreign labor still resides in their own country, or illegally crosses into the US, access to workers willing to accept much lower wages does have that effect. And the principal group that is impacted in this case is NOT black Americans, but second-generation Hispanic-American citizens, and legal immigrants from the countries who supply the illegal ones. Their efforts to rise are thwarted by the relative lack of jobs at other than the depressed wages acceptable to illegal immigrants.

"Steal American Jobs" - This is a reverse echo of "jobs no American will do", but it resounds nonetheless. Either way, jobs taken by illegal immigrants are just as inaccessible to American citizens and other legal residents as those exported to India, Hong Kong -- or Mexico.

I also find it very interesting that people who would not tolerate sweatshop labor at pittance wages in an American company (here or overseas) will argue for drastically underpaying illegal immigrant labor -- and remember, only around 25% of agricultural labor is provided by illegal immigrants.

But I'm quite sure that by "undesirable" he merely means not criminally inclined, overtly seditious, etc.

On this I'm sure you are correct.

I'm certain that NONE of the tens of millions of Mexicans in question will be held to the same SKILL LEVEL requirements that applicants from every other third world country are, precisely in order to prevent half of their populations from being let in.

Have you ever been to Washington DC or other major east coast cities and taken a cab or checked into a hotel? Those jobs are being done by African immigrants who have been let in under hardship status over the last decade. That's all relatively unskilled labor, and they were moved to the head of the line. This is not unprecedented.

In addition, we NEED low-skill workers. Your nonsensical argument is the same as the Nativists who set up the original immigration quota system which never worked right - where there were 500,000 slots for immigrants from western Europe and a tenth as many applied. People with skills from modern industrialized nations don't want or need to come to America in the same numbers, and we don't particularly want or need them either. We need good, reliable low-skill workers to do the jobs that need doing and keep wages down and inflation under control.

The white European people you want to put at the front of your immigration line will NEVER have trouble getting into the country or getting a good job somewhere else, plus they don't want to come in particularly large numbers or want to do the jobs we have available.

Dave

I also find it very interesting that people who would not tolerate sweatshop labor at pittance wages in an American company (here or overseas) will argue for drastically underpaying illegal immigrant labor -- and remember, only around 25% of agricultural labor is provided by illegal immigrants.

Most illegals who come here are not paid sweatshop wages. Under no circumstances can $12 an hour be considered a sweatshop wage. On average they earn no less than 80% of what natives earn in comparable jobs, and quite frequently they earn the same salary for the same work. And those ones who work at a reduced wage as migrant farm workers are mostly here legally and working at a legally set lower minimum wage.

Dave

We need good, reliable low-skill workers to do the jobs that need doing and keep wages down

Yeah, let's keep wages down (at least low-end and middle-class wages), while at the same time PRICES continue to spiral out of control. In other words give poor Mexicans a chance at a better life, by insuring an ever worsening life for American citizens.

Richard, prices aren't spiralling out of control. What planet do you live on? We have very low inflation here in the US. One reason for that is that we outsource and employ illegals to keep certain labor costs reasonable - not ultra-low and still a livable wage, but we prevent excessive wage inflation in vital areas like construction and service industries and other labor-intensive work. Regardless of what you may think in your bizarro world, this is good for American consumers, especially those of us who are native to the country, have a high-school education and can read and write English, because our buck goes farther at WalMart and we can still earn a decent wage because the company we work for hasn't been forced out of business by overseas competition.

Dave

Dear Davey,

"What planet do you live on?" --- is currently a banned cliche.

Please find a replacement phrase that is somewhat original or creative.

Muchas Gracias,
Shark, your editor

Was that really Richard Brodie? I've not seen him make a basic error of English before.

Shouldn't his last line read "by ensuring" not "insuring"? Unless there is a new policy I've not heard of!

Insuring; policy: get it? lol

And shArk, I wish you had a blog...

Christopher, Americans routinely use insuring in place of ensuring and I'm not sure it's considered an error anymore.

Shark, from now on I'll replace 'what planet do you live on' with 'good lord man, do you live in the same delusional alternate dimension as Shark?'

Dave

There have been many great additions to the English language made in America. This one, which I hadn't come across before, seems like one of the less useful ones.

And I wouldn't go around assuming too much about which slice of reality is the alternative dimension. There can't be many folk in the USA living in a walled compound.

What's your strategy for resisting a siege by the way?

The speech was probably good for his numbers but was also completely meaningless. What good do guards do if you set up a massive guest worker program?

Mexicans will just grab a guest card and walk right past your silly guardsmen then ditch the card and stay here.

Let's consider why the dems love illegal immigration so much.

a) It drives up salaries creating a 'living wage' for more Americans increasing the size of the middle class, all things held dear by the unions that support them.

b) Squeezing as many warm bodies into an area of land as is possible is great for the environment, conserves natural resources, and lowers pollution, great for the greens!.

c) Having different geographical regions inside a country with different languages, cultures, and religions has been a recipe for harmony throughout history and is a model that should be brought here.

d) It creates racial tensions which allows them to play the race card to gain votes and give the finger to the much hated 'WASP's' (the world was must have been a great place before western civilization)

Answer: The leftists know that bringing in another poor minority will gain them votes and continue to allow them to play the race card. (reread the above posts and see how many stupid fucks claimed that anyone who was against unchecked immigration is a racist)

Greed and false hope that they can somehow score some of the votes from the hard working immigrants cause republicans to join in the folly. They are absolutely wrong though. The left will turn mexican immigrants into angry democrat-voting victims soon enough.

It's way easier to believe the leftist lie that you're not as materially successful in life because of a racist and class based discrimination than to believe it's because of your own inactions and lack of motivation, education, or ability. (far more often the case)

That lie works time and time again though and Nalle's a lunatic to think this is any different. A near 50% dropout rate for Mexican immigrants combined with the fact that they come here with nothing IS creating an underclass which, unlike blacks, will have the voting power to seriously change this country.

prices aren't spiralling out of control.

You must bicycle to work - and we haven't even yet seen the full impact of a 50% rise in gasoline prices in two months time, on the costs of ALL goods and services.

What planet do you live on?

One where my parents were able to send me through Stanford for $2,000 a year - their total cost for my Ivy League Bachelor's Degree: $8,000 - and where, a mere 40 years later, the same thing would cost me $30,000 a year, or $120,000 for EACH of my 8 children. Please tell me how regarding THAT as out of control is "delusional". At that rate of increase, MY children will be looking at just under HALF A MILLION dollars A YEAR to educate THEIR children! To me, the fact that you DON'T regard that as out of control, is what is truly bizarre.

excessive wage inflation

I will not defend my error in using "insure" where I ought to have written "ensure". My bad, Chris, and thanks for pointing it out - same goes for my earlier inaccurate use of "paraphase." (apologies to zing) The effect that such a massive influx of non-English speaking immigrants will have on the corruption of the language is another topic. But while we are discussing terminolgy, wouldn't "increases" be more appropriate than "inflation" in this context? - setting down can-opener, as worms begin to crawl out :)

we can still earn a decent wage because the company we work for hasn't been forced out of business by overseas competition

and maybe because our job in that company has not yet been outsourced "to keep certain labor costs reasonable"?

In the absence of a strong isolationist candidate, I think that I, a person who have never voted Democratic in my life, would almost rather have another Clinton (gag!) in the White House, in preference to a globalist, incurable entangling alliance making Republican like Bush.

"What's your strategy for resisting a siege by the way?"

Well, he could always post his photograph around the perimeter.

The last time I chased down 'insure' vs. 'ensure' a few years ago the modern dictionaries proclaimed them synonomous because of Common Usage. I think that's a copout. 'Ensure' is a pro-active attempt to assure a certain outcome, but 'insure' is a passive contract to indemnify a loser. Well, that's the way I see it, anyhow. YMMV.

You must bicycle to work - and we haven't even yet seen the full impact of a 50% rise in gasoline prices in two months time, on the costs of ALL goods and services.

Gas prices have been at an inflated level for over a year. During that time we've had record low inflation. The rise int he last two months only brings prices back to where they were at the end of last summer, so it's irrelevant. Plus the price has fluctuated. It actually dropped significantly in the last two weeks.

What planet do you live on?

One where my parents were able to send me through Stanford for $2,000 a year - their total cost for my Ivy League Bachelor's Degree: $8,000

Ah, so it IS a different planet. Here on earth Stanford isn't part of the Ivy LEague, though it's a fine university of comparable quality.

- and where, a mere 40 years later, the same thing would cost me $30,000 a year, or $120,000 for EACH of my 8 children. Please tell me how regarding THAT as out of control is "delusional". At that rate of increase, MY children will be looking at just under HALF A MILLION dollars A YEAR to educate THEIR children! To me, the fact that you DON'T regard that as out of control, is what is truly bizarre.

A top-school education is only one of thousands of factors in the economy, and while prices at Stanford or actual Ivy League schools have gone up dramatically, prices at public universities have in many cases lagged behind inflation over that same 40 year period.

we can still earn a decent wage because the company we work for hasn't been forced out of business by overseas competition

Yes we can. Because those companies have stayed in business by taking advantage of cheap foreign labor, keeping the best jobs here in the US and reducing costs by sending the scut work overseas.

and maybe because our job in that company has not yet been outsourced "to keep certain labor costs reasonable"?

Except that they only outsource certain sorts of jobs, and outsourcing usually results in increasing the number of higher paying jobs as the company expands and becomes more profitable because of responsible and efficient management.

Dave

'Ensure' is a pro-active attempt to assure a certain outcome, but 'insure' is a passive contract to indemnify a loser.

But the decision and action to purchase an INsurance contract are pro-active, and conversely non-legal "attempts to assure a certain outcome" can involve both pro-active and passive aspects. So I would rather differentiate strictly on the basis of contractual vs. non-contractual. All forms of insuring are ways to ensure, but not the other way around.

Perhaps the license for confusing these terms comes from the fact that 'enquire' and 'inquire' really are completely synonymous. I would favor dropping the former from the language altogether,
since most variant forms, like 'inquisition', 'inquest', 'inquisitive', etc. do not have an 'en-' alternative. About the only exception is 'enquirer', which a lot of newspapers unfortunately use in their titles, but too bad for them!

prices at Stanford or actual Ivy League schools have gone up dramatically

Dramatically? Why are you so afraid to use the term "out of control"? Oh, I know, we must not ever say anything that implies that the BUSH administration does not have everything perfectly well under control. So if a several thousand percent increase in a mere two generations is not out of control, what would be? You'd still be trying to justify it if it were a million per-cent.

In place like Zimbabwe, where a loaf of bread costs millions of dollars, at least WAGES have also risen into the millions of dollars per week. The peculiar genius of American inflation, is that it is only PRICES that go up, not wages. For example, if you go back to the point in time when gasoline was HALF as expensive as it is now, I highly doubt that you would see that wages are now TWICE what they were then.

It isn't just the economy that Bush has allowed to get out of control, primarily as a result of his astronomically expensive nation-building military adventurism. He is also doing nothing to prevent our population from growing out of control. By giving amnesty to 10 or 20 million Mexican illegals, who will then in turn be in a position to sponsor 50 to 100 million of their relatives, he is sabotaging not only the American middle class, but also the Republican party. For it is the welfare- and multiculturalist-friendly Democrats whom the new Hispanic American majority will be voting for.

Dramatically? Why are you so afraid to use the term "out of control"? Oh, I know, we must not ever say anything that implies that the BUSH administration does not have everything perfectly well under control. So if a several thousand percent increase in a mere two generations is not out of control, what would be? You'd still be trying to justify it if it were a million per-cent.

It's private enterprise. It's not supposed to BE controlled. And this has nothing to do with the Bush administration. These tuition rates started going up well before Bush took office and haven't gone up any faster in the last few years than they did before - in fact they have gone up in several spurts in the 70s and 80s. This isn't an issue to take up with the administration, but with the individual universities who have raised their prices so high.

Plus I'm not sure the inflation in this area is as out of control as you suggest. Currently the average cost per year at a public college is about $4700. When I attended a public University in the early 80s I paid $2000 a year. That's an increase averaging 9% per year. The current average cost for a private college is $19,700 a year. When I attended a private college back in the mid-70s I paid $7800 a year. That's an increase of 8.4% per year.

Ok, that's more than the general inflation rate of 2%, admittedly. But it's not a huge rate of inflation. It's not prices doubling overnight, it's prices doubling over 20 years.

You might want to check out the Wikipedia page on college tuition. It suggests that this trend of tuition growth goes back as far as records have been kept of this sort of thing - at least back to the 1940s. According to that article, once you adjust for inflation most schools have gone up only a very small amount, in the 1 or 2 percent range per year.

It isn't just the economy that Bush has allowed to get out of control, primarily as a result of his astronomically expensive nation-building military adventurism. He is also doing nothing to prevent our population from growing out of control. By giving amnesty to 10 or 20 million Mexican illegals, who will then in turn be in a position to sponsor 50 to 100 million of their relatives, he is sabotaging not only the American middle class, but also the Republican party. For it is the welfare- and multiculturalist-friendly Democrats whom the new Hispanic American majority will be voting for.

The economy isn't out of control. Despite a couple of factors of aberrant inflation like gas prices, the overall inflation rate is historically low. Essentials like food and clothes are at more or less the same or even cheaper prices than they were a few years ago.

Dave

The economy isn't out of control.

And how many trillions of enslaving debt do Americans now groan under, that Bush has done nothing about eliminating?

Significant that the topic you should choose NOT to address is the very one that is supposedly the subject of this thread.

Oh come on. Let's try to be at least hafway sane here, Richard. There's no 'enslaving' debt. We have a reasonable level of debt compared to our GDP, about the same as most other western countries. That debt may have grown in the last few years, but it does that periodically. Debt helps boost the economy and encourages foreign investment As for Bush doing nothing about eliminating it, he's increased tax revenues enormously and has successfully cut the two most recent budgets to the point where the deficit is expected to hit 0 years earlier than previously expected.

Dave

As for the original topic, I'd be glad to carry on with it. Let's see some sensible arguments from the faction that wants us to promote labor shortages, massive inflation and huge spending on defending an indefensible border.

Dave