Half-million people show up for immigration law protest

[Thomas Veil]

Things just keep getting better and better for Bush and the GOP:

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- They surprised the police, and maybe themselves, their T-shirts turning block after block of downtown Los Angeles streets white in a demonstration so massive that few causes in recent U.S. history have matched it.

Police said more than 500,000 people marched Saturday to protest a proposed federal crackdown on illegal immigration.

Wearing white as a sign of peace, and waving flags from the U.S., Mexico, Guatemala and other countries, they came to show that illegal immigrants already are part of the American fabric, and want the chance to be legal, law-abiding citizens.

Police used helicopters to come up with the crowd estimate. "I've been on the force 38 years and I've never seen a rally this big," said Cmdr. Louis Gray Jr., incident commander for the rally.

In Denver, Colorado, more than 50,000 people protested downtown Saturday, according to police who had expected only a few thousand. Phoenix was similarly surprised Friday when an estimated 20,000 people gathered for one of the biggest demonstrations in city history, and more than 10,000 marched in Milwaukee on Thursday.

The demonstrators oppose legislation passed by the U.S. House that would make it a felony to be in the U.S. illegally. It also would impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants, require churches to check the legal status of parishioners before helping them and erect fences along one-third of the U.S.-Mexican border....

The Senate was to begin debating immigration proposals Tuesday.

President Bush is pushing for a guest worker program that could provide temporary legal status for some of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, but many of his fellow Republicans are taking a more restrictive stance.I love that last paragraph. Keep it up, GOP. Are we ready for the November elections yet? :D

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/25/immigration.rallies.ap/index.html)

[Airforce]

President Bush is pushing for a guest worker program that could provide temporary legal status for some of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, but many of his fellow Republicans are taking a more restrictive stance.

He needs to listen to those Republicans. I'm all for HR 4437 and no guest worker program.

[maxterpiece]

now someone just needs to slip this sentence in in real small print at the end of the bill, "And we grant all illegal immigrants the right to vote in presidential elections."

[leekohler]

Wow- this is tough. I have known many illegal immigrants myself. But I still think it's in our best interests to enforce our immigration laws. I DEFINITELY think the church thing goes way to far though. I mean, come on- you should be able to go to a church regardless and feel safe. Churches should not be involved with, or subject to the government.

[Peterkro]

Enforce your immigration laws and the Californian economy for one would collapse.

[TheMonarch]

If passed and enforced correctly, this could really screw California up :( :mad:

[solvs]

I'm torn on the issue itself, but would have gone to the protest myself had I learned of it before it was over. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about dealing with this, and this is the wrong way. I can't help thinking of all of those who rail against illegal immigration, but have no problem when their gardeners and maids are immigrants, who they have no problem taking advantage of. Of course, some of those that rant against these types of laws are guilty of the same things, so we should just invade Mexico and declare it the 51st state and get it over with. Boom, we cut the immigration "problem" to almost nothing.

Anybody find it funny that Canada is starting to do this type of thing to us?

[TheMonarch]

I'm torn on the issue itself...

I'm going to voice myself against this. Its really going to mess up CA. Badly.

[Airforce]

I'm going to voice myself against this. Its really going to mess up CA. Badly.

So we should go soft on people who break the law just because it might affect businesses?

[Peterkro]

So we should go soft on people who break the law just because it might affect businesses?

"if enough people disobey the law the law is an ass" Lord Denning Master of the Rolls (premier judge of the UK).

Your not surely saying most people in the US obey all the laws.

PS thats a donkey not an arse for you septics.

[Airforce]

Your not surely saying most people in the US obey all the laws.

Huh? Of course most people obey the laws. If they don't, they deserve to be caught and punished.

[Peterkro]

Huh? Of course most people obey the laws. If they don't, they deserve to be caught and punished.

Your jails are bursting at the seams already(9% of the population) and are you seriously telling me that you don't speed etc.Also the US economy would collapse overnight if tax evasion by large business was clamped down on.

[Airforce]

Your jails are bursting at the seams already(9% of the population) and are you seriously telling me that you don't speed etc.Also the US economy would collapse overnight if tax evasion by large business was clamped down on.

If I'm caught speeding, I deserve a ticket just as someone who breaks the law by being an illegal here in the United States deserves a punishment.

The amount of people in the jails and tax evasion by large business has nothing to do with this.

[solvs]

So we should go soft on people who break the law just because it might affect businesses?
No, but we don't hit flies with sledge hammers either. Have you read the particulars of the proposed law they are protesting? It doesn't really do anything to fix the problem itself, would be incredibly difficult to enforce without a lot more funding, not to mention costing more money than it's supposed to save, and the church thing is way out of line. There are already laws to crack down on illegal immigration. There are ways to deal with the failings of that system. This is not it.

[Peterkro]

If I'm caught speeding, I deserve a ticket just as someone who breaks the law by being an illegal here in the United States deserves a punishment.

The amount of people in the jails and tax evasion by large business has nothing to do with this.
Tax evasion is against US law(thats evasion not avoidance).At the risk of some dickhead trying to evoke Godwins law,the people of Europe would have been a lot better off if the German middle classes told Hitler to piss off.

[solvs]

If I'm caught speeding, I deserve a ticket just as someone who breaks the law by being an illegal here in the United States deserves a punishment.

The amount of people in the jails and tax evasion by large business has nothing to do with this.
But you also aren't charged with a felony and thrown in an overcrowded jail for a couple of years for speeding. And the amount of people in jails and effect on businesses should be taken into consideration. They are realities that will have to be dealt with. You don't just start making laws to supplement existing laws that aren't working without considering the repercussions. It's fine to enforce laws, or create new laws, but like I said, we don't hit flies with sledgehammers. Especially if it's going to make a big hole in the wall.

[Airforce]

No, but we don't hit flies with sledge hammers either. Have you read the particulars of the proposed law they are protesting? It doesn't really do anything to fix the problem itself, would be incredibly difficult to enforce without a lot more funding, not to mention costing more money than it's supposed to save, and the church thing is way out of line. There are already laws to crack down on illegal immigration. There are ways to deal with the failings of that system. This is not it.

The current laws aren't working and a solution or a way to a solution has been proposed. From civil to criminal, punishing those who help the illegals, a bit more pressure on the cops, difficult doesn't mean impossible and is sure to be better than it is. I think it will work. That's my opinion on it. My other opinion is it probably won't pass with Bush wanting veto it if his little clause doesn't get included about migrant workers and Clinton willing to filibuster.

Illegals are a burden and one I'd be happy to pay a bit of money more in the way of taxes to get rid of.

[solvs]

The current laws aren't working
No they aren't, but I don't think this is going to fix anything. Seems more like a lot of posturing from people looking for a cause. Not that Bush's idea is that great, but it's a moot issue anyway. It won't pass and nothing will get fixed, and border security will continue to be underfunded while even legal immigrants are taken advantage of. I just don't see how locking people in jails as felons is going to do any good, and I think you're simplifying the ramifications, which would be worse than you think.

[Ugg]

Illegals are a burden and one I'd be happy to pay a bit of money more in the way of taxes to get rid of.

There have been a lot of studies done and there seems to be no clear indication that illegals cost exorbitant amounts of money. What's interesting in this argument is that as far as you and most others are concerned, illegals come from Africa, Latin and South America and Asia. There's a huge illegal European population here as well, their departure could devastate certain parts of the economy.

Where I live in California's central valley, many farmers are getting rid of their field crops and planting orchards instead simply because there aren't enough workers to harvest crops. Many illegals are turning to higher paid jobs in construction, maintenance, etc. It will devastate the economies of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, etc if 12 million illegal resdients are returned home. The loss of tax income alone will be devastating and the massive rise in food prices will mean many people will go without fresh food.

What's needed is a guestworker program pure and simple. Without one, watch the economy plummet.

[pseudobrit]

If I'm caught speeding, I deserve a ticket just as someone who breaks the law by being an illegal here in the United States deserves a punishment.

Or maybe the speed limit should be raised.

[IJ Reilly]

Where I live, the orchards are being replaced by field crops -- mainly because citrus is being grown much more inexpensively in South America, and can now be imported.

Anyhow, I always take amusement in conservatives arguing that tougher immigrations laws more strictly enforced can somehow be made to suspend the powerful forces of economic gravity at work. The folks on the Right are always going to have tremendous difficulty with this issue. Their positions are internally in conflict, and probably irreconcilable.

[pseudobrit]

The current laws aren't working and a solution or a way to a solution has been proposed...
Illegals are a burden and one I'd be happy to pay a bit of money more in the way of taxes to get rid of.

Immigrants are not a burden. It's quite the opposite; they're helping our economy stay afloat and we need more of them if we want to hold onto what's left of the manufacturing base in this country.

I say open the process up wider. Since Bush clamped down after the terrorist attacks it's become harder to get into this country legally. The process is prohibitively long, tedious and complex.

We need to take the immigration process and blow it open. Maybe not fully open as we saw in the Ellis Island days, but we need to make it much quicker and easier for an immigrant to come here and stay here legally. Such a process would also help spread needed labour to northern states and perhaps stop the flow of industry offshore.

A Mexican immigrant will do a low paying job in America. A Chinese worker will do it for less – in China.

[zimv20]

Illegals are a burden
prove it. no anecdotals or conjecture.

[Airforce]

Not a burden at all? Have you ever been to a border town? Do you know what it's like to get hit by one of these bastards not holding insurance?

Not to mention education costs for their children, health care costs, ect. Not a burden at all. Give me a break :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

Not a burden at all? Have you ever been to a border town?
anecdotal!


Not to mention education costs for their children, health care costs, ect. Not a burden at all.
conjecture!

0/2

[Airforce]

anecdotal!


conjecture!

0/2

Tip: Google. You'd know these kind of things if you lived near areas affected by it. It's made the news plenty of times.

www.google.com

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=illegal+immigrants+medical

Have some fun.

[pseudobrit]

Tip: Google. You'd know these kind of things if you lived near areas affected by it. It's made the news plenty of times.

www.google.com

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=illegal+immigrants+medical

Have some fun.

You're making the argument. Why should someone else have to do your research for you?

[zimv20]

Tip: Google. You'd know these kind of things if you lived near areas affected by it.
chicago has the 2nd largest mexican population in the US.

and a forum tip for you: if you make a claim, you have to back it up. it's not my job to go googling for your support data. you provide that data, and i'll either accept it or provide my own counter-data.

[mactastic]

Where I live, the orchards are being replaced by field crops -- mainly because citrus is being grown much more inexpensively in South America, and can now be imported.

Anyhow, I always take amusement in conservatives arguing that tougher immigrations laws more strictly enforced can somehow be made to suspend the powerful forces of economic gravity at work. The folks on the Right are always going to have tremendous difficulty with this issue. Their positions are internally in conflict, and probably irreconcilable.
And their solutions are just as likely to succeed as the ones they propose in the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror.

[IJ Reilly]

And their solutions are just as likely to succeed as the ones they propose in the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror.

It all depends on how you define "success." The problem as I see it for conservatives is figuring out whether they support free markets where labor is concerned, or whether they prefer to create Fortress America, where immigration is successfully limited to a far smaller number of people than the economics of the labor market demands. These propositions are mutually exclusive.

[zimv20]

airforce, check out how illegal immigrants pump $8.5 billion into social security and medicare each year, as discussed in this thread: Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=118656)

[XNine]

airforce, check out how illegal immigrants pump $8.5 billion into social security and medicare each year, as discussed in this thread: Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=118656)

And George Dubbaya is spending it all...

Look, if you think illegal immigrants are a good thing, I'm sorry, but you need to take a look around.

- There isn't a construction job around that they aren't taking. Let's not forget the crappy job they do, leaving beer bottles and trash inside the walls of newly constructed homes
- They don't have car insurance. In fact on Friday my father was t-boned by one of these ********** and he ended up running off. Guess who gets to pay for all of the damage and medical now? My father.
- People like Mayor Webb of Colorado stuck up for them, and not only did they get to stay here, they got State ID's and the ability to have bank accounts. GOOD IDEA!!!!!! Give them hope of stealing more jobs.

Sorry man, but I've known too many people who've lost they're jobs because some bean-counter thought it was a good idea to do crappy work at a 10th of the cost rather than great work, fired all of his American workers and hired illegal immigrants.

Hell, the Canadians have halted immigration, why can't we?

[TheMonarch]

And George Dubbaya is spending it all...

Look, if you think illegal immigrants are a good thing, I'm sorry, but you need to take a look around.

- There isn't a construction job around that they aren't taking. Let's not forget the crappy job they do, leaving beer bottles and trash inside the walls of newly constructed homes
- They don't have car insurance. In fact on Friday my father was t-boned by one of these ********** and he ended up running off. Guess who gets to pay for all of the damage and medical now? My father.
- People like Mayor Webb of Colorado stuck up for them, and not only did they get to stay here, they got State ID's and the ability to have bank accounts. GOOD IDEA!!!!!! Give them hope of stealing more jobs.

Sorry man, but I've known too many people who've lost they're jobs because some bean-counter thought it was a good idea to do crappy work at a 10th of the cost rather than great work, fired all of his American workers and hired illegal immigrants.

Hell, the Canadians have halted immigration, why can't we?

You need to look around. I don't know where you live [Colorado?] but over here in California, the wealthiest state in the US and 5th largest economy in the world, it is what it is because of immigration. They pump BILLIONS in to social security. Should this go into effect, this will screw A LOT of us up.

But again, they're nothing buy bean-counters to you :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

- There isn't a construction job around that they aren't taking. Let's not forget the crappy job they do, leaving beer bottles and trash inside the walls of newly constructed homes
whoa! cool it on the racism. and: anecdotal.


- They don't have car insurance. In fact on Friday my father was t-boned by one of these ********** and he ended up running off.
i've also been hit by an uninsured motorist, who wasn't an illegal immigrant. not sure what your point is. and: anecdotal.


- People like Mayor Webb of Colorado stuck up for them, and not only did they get to stay here, they got State ID's and the ability to have bank accounts.
the horror!

I've known too many people who've lost they're jobs because some bean-counter thought it was a good idea to do crappy work at a 10th of the cost rather than great work, fired all of his American workers and hired illegal immigrants.
and whose fault is that? the immigrants? or the employer? has anyone reported this employer to the DOL? or does everyone simply sit around and bitch about it?

[XNine]

But again, they're nothing buy bean-counters to you :rolleyes:

"bean-counter" is a common reference to Accountants, not people of spanish descent.

whoa! cool it on the racism. and: anecdotal.
I'm not racist at all. However I did work in construction for over 4 years, and I can tell you that finding beer bottles and fast food trash was scattered everywhere in those homes, and upon having to retro a wire run, cutting open a wall, you'd be amazed at the things you'd find.

i've also been hit by an uninsured motorist, who wasn't an illegal immigrant. not sure what your point is. and: anecdotal.
My point is, is that these people take off like a bat out of hell when they hit someone (and no, my one example isn't my experience with this, but there have been 4 instances where someone I know has gone through the same thing.) The person may have hit you, but at least they could be ticketed or fined by court.

but over here in California, the wealthiest state in the US and 5th largest economy in the world, it is what it is because of immigration.
That's great, I have no problem with people immigrating and doing what they can to be LEGAL, it's illegal immigration I can't stand. Hell, I go to a Korean dry cleaning service, and although they don't speak a whole lot of english, they know enough to interact with me, and never screw anything up I've paid them to do. They'll even replace the soles on my shoes and do a damn fine job of it. But they're LEGAL. I've never been to a place that takes that much pride in Dry cleaning before. But they do an amazing job.

Really, I don't care if people want to live here, but becoming a part of the legal system should be required. We shouldn't just hand these people rights to carry ID's and get bank accounts if they don't care enough to at least TRY to become citizens. Those that are in the process of doing this, I have no qualm with. Thank you for coming to America, enjoy your stay.

[IJ Reilly]

The key is not to get so wrapped up in "legal" vs. "illegal" immigration. Where immigration is concerned, the definitions of these terms change constantly -- they are based entirely upon the policy of the moment, not some objective or even widely-accepted standard of right and wrong. The point some of us are making is, if the demand for immigrant labor in a country is wildly out of balance with the number of work-seekers they will allow to enter the country, then you will get borders that cannot be "defended," sort of turning the country into an armed encampment.

[zimv20]

I did work in construction for over 4 years, and I can tell you that finding beer bottles and fast food trash was scattered everywhere in those homes, and upon having to retro a wire run, cutting open a wall, you'd be amazed at the things you'd find.
okay, construction workers are sloppy. what does that have to do with being an illegal immigrant?

[skunk]

okay, construction workers are sloppy.I blame the foreman.

[IJ Reilly]

I blame the foreman.

I blame all five of them.

[skunk]

I blame all five of them.That's right, spread it around, why don't you? Exemplary punishment.

[pseudobrit]

That's great, I have no problem with people immigrating and doing what they can to be LEGAL, it's illegal immigration I can't stand...

We shouldn't just hand these people rights to carry ID's and get bank accounts if they don't care enough to at least TRY to become citizens.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is for an unskilled, non-college educated, broken English-speaker to get citizenship?

We've made it impossible to succeed and complain when they fail.

It's a 5mph speed limit on a four-lane expressway. And we have the gall to bitch because there's lawlessness.

[XNine]

Do you have any idea how difficult it is for an unskilled, non-college educated, broken English-speaker to get citizenship?

We've made it impossible to succeed and complain when they fail.

It's a 5mph speed limit on a four-lane expressway. And we have the gall to bitch because there's lawlessness.

I DO understand. My friend's father's boyfriend (didja follow all of that? lol ) is Japanese, and he tried to get citizenship, but failed over 5 years in a row.

I agree it's a horrible system that we have in place, but I also do not agree with just letting them be here without any kind of establishment. The system needs a complete overhaul, but again, the topic at hand is them being legal vs. illegal.

[pseudobrit]

The system needs a complete overhaul, but again, the topic at hand is them being legal vs. illegal.

And the high ratio of illegals is directly caused by the system's need of a complete overhaul.

[Peterkro]

It all depends on how you define "success." The problem as I see it for conservatives is figuring out whether they support free markets where labor is concerned, or whether they prefer to create Fortress America, where immigration is successfully limited to a far smaller number of people than the economics of the labor market demands. These propositions are mutually exclusive.

I think you hit the nail squarely on its head there IJ,the free marketeers go on about the free movement of capital ad nauseam but bring up the free movement of labour they start screaming blue murder.If you want free markets free movement of labour can't be denied.

[XNine]

And the high ratio of illegals is directly caused by the system's need of a complete overhaul.

touché Pseudo, touché!

[solvs]

And the high ratio of illegals is directly caused by the system's need of a complete overhaul.
This is what I was arguing. The system is broken, but this doesn't fix it. It doesn't even deal with the symptom, let alone the cause. It's a tough issue, and I don't like to simplify it either way.

And this law is nothing more than a distraction. A way to rally the troops. Even people who are against illegal immigrants should be bothered by how extreme it is.

[zimv20]

And this law is nothing more than a distraction. A way to rally the troops.
good point. this reminds me of the gay marriage amendment.

[Thomas Veil]

Of course. This will be the "big issue" to rally the ultra-conservatives to the polls this fall. I think it's going to backfire, though, because everyone else will perceive it as picking on some of the weakest members of society.

[solvs]

good point. this reminds me of the gay marriage amendment.
Which, unlike this, actually kinda worked.

[mactastic]

Of course. This will be the "big issue" to rally the ultra-conservatives to the polls this fall. I think it's going to backfire, though, because everyone else will perceive it as picking on some of the weakest members of society.
Except this one has the potential to divide the GOP instead of the country. Only a small number of those outside the far right support these kind of draconian restrictions -- and understand the consequences to their lifestyle of a suddenly-reduced immigrant flow. Do you think the latte-drinking, sushi-eating, ivory-tower living conservatives who are on one of the upper rungs, but still far from the top, of the ladder -- do you think those people want to give up their maids and their gardeners and the employee pool they can draw from in certain industries? Do they REALLY want to give that up?

[Sayhey]

Every resident of a state that borders Mexico, and a few others, knows that when the going gets tough for conservatives you can always count on them bringing out the "beware the Mexican invasion" theme to rally the fears of the ignorant. Funny, I don't see any calls for walls to be built across the Canadian border, or anecdotal stories of the horrible burden illegal Irish workers (yes, they exist today) place on the our society. You can count on it being, as former Governor Pete Wilson used to say, all about "Pedro and Maria." It's sick.

[Thanatoast]

If you get right down to it, the Republicans' plan to deal with illegal immigration is to put 11 million people in jail and build a giant fence across the desert. How does that not sound crazy?

[IJ Reilly]

If you get right down to it, the Republicans' plan to deal with illegal immigration is to put 11 million people in jail and build a giant fence across the desert. How does that not sound crazy?

They don't really have a plan. Or more to the point, they can't agree on one. I have to admit to enjoying the internal Republican immigration fracas. If the Democrats could just get their act together for five minutes, they could easily outflank the Republicans on this issue.

[Sayhey]

They don't really have a plan. Or more to the point, they can't agree on one. I have to admit to enjoying the internal Republican immigration fracas. If the Democrats could just get their act together for five minutes, they could easily outflank the Republicans on this issue.

They don't really need an effective plan, IJ, because the real plan is to use the issue to scare enough people to get elected again. The fact I keep seeing big city Democrats involved in these huge demonstrations, shows me that at least some Democrats have a counter-plan. Again, not one that addresses the real border issues, but at least a plan to counter the worst of the fear mongering.

[IJ Reilly]

They don't really need an effective plan, IJ, because the real plan is to use the issue to scare enough people to get elected again. The fact I keep seeing big city Democrats involved in these huge demonstrations, shows me that at least some Democrats have a counter-plan. Again, not one that addresses the real border issues, but at least a plan to counter the worst of the fear mongering.

I don't see Republicans united on a fear-mongering strategy. Bush, to his credit, is leading his party in the opposite direction, and I believe the strategists within the leadership have to be afraid of alienating hispanic voters, one of the populations where they've been showing electoral progress of late. No, I think the GOP is stuck between two factions within the party. Their differences appear to be irreconcilable. The Democrats could paint a very different picture of immigration, even as the Republicans are essentially canceling themselves out on the issue, and potentially gain big I suspect.

[SharksFan22]

I find it interesting to watch the coverage of this issue and see the passion of the people involved. It's definitely a touchy subject and living in California, it's a frequently raised issue.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem at all with a person that comes to America to build a better life for themselves. I think it's fantastic and support it. What irritates me is the government's process or laws that encourages illegal immigration, e.g. granting drivers' licenses. Unfortunately, the current proposal doesn't really solve the problem, but I would offer that the USA needs to rip out the current laws and re-do them. Let's get these people on track to being legal immigrants.

[Airforce]

H.R. 4437 if anyone is wondering exactly what it says:

http://www.gop.gov/Committeecentral/bills/hr4437.asp

Summary

Highlights of the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act

Ø Combat Hiring of Illegal Workers – The bill institutes an employment eligibility verification system in which employers will check the Social Security numbers and alien identification numbers (provided by employees) against Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) records in order to weed out fraudulent numbers and ensure that their employees are not working in the U.S. illegally.

Ø Increased Penalties for Alien Smuggling - Under current law, individuals convicted of alien smuggling crimes often receive lenient sentences. Provisions in the bill would greatly increase criminal penalties for alien smuggling by establishing mandatory minimum sentences, among other things. These provisions were recommended by a panel of border-area U.S. Attorneys to make it easier to deport smugglers and illegal entrants.

Ø Crackdown on Alien Gang Members This provision would render alien street gang members inadmissible and deportable, and authorize the Attorney General to designate groups or associations as criminal street gangs if they meet certain criteria. Also requires the detention of alien street gang members and bars alien gang members from receiving humanitarian benefits.

Ø Increased Penalties for Aliens re-entering Illegally – Provisions would stiffen penalties for aliens who re-enter the United States after having been removed.

Ø Aggravated Felony Provisions - The provisions would make aggravated felons (crimes of violence) inadmissible and would bar refugees and asylees with aggravated felony convictions from receiving green cards.

Ø Cooperation between Border Sheriffs and Federal Law Enforcement – Provisions in the bill would authorize and reimburse local sheriffs in the 29 counties along the southern border to enforce the immigration laws and transfer illegal aliens to federal custody. It also specifically reimburses those sheriffs for costs associated with detaining illegal aliens whom they arrest until they are able to hand them over to federal authorities. This provision deems aliens in sheriffs’ custody to be in federal custody once determined to be in an unlawful status.

Ø Increasing DHS Authority for Long-Term Detention - The U.S. Supreme Court has limited DHS ability to detain dangerous aliens with decisions that have forced hundreds of aliens (such as murderers) to be released into American communities. One alien released because of these Court decisions later shot a state trooper in the head. This change would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to allow for continued detention of aliens who pose a threat to Americans.

Ø Renewing DHS Authority to Use Reinstatement of Removal Process - In Morales-Izquierdo v. Ashcroft, the Ninth Circuit recently invalidated DHS reinstatement of removal regulations, which allows DHS to remove an alien previously deported by simply reinstating the alien’s prior order of removal. The House Judiciary Committee has been told that this procedure was used in some 90,000 cases last year, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision affects 40% of removals in the Ninth Circuit. This amendment to the INA would clarify DHS’s authority to reinstate orders.

Ø Barring Terrorist Aliens from Naturalization - Bars aliens who are potential terrorists or security risks from becoming U.S. citizens.

Ø Deportation for DUI – Would make multiple DUI offenses a deportable offense for all aliens.

Establishing Operational Control of All Borders and Ports

Ø Recognizing the need to bolster Border Patrol and surveillance capabilities to establish operational control of our borders and prevent the unlawful entry of terrorists and potential criminals, the bill:

o Requires DHS and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a joint strategic plan that will provide the Border Patrol with military support and increased use of DOD surveillance.

o Requires DHS to conduct comprehensive risk assessments of all ports of entry and international land and maritime borders to prevent the entry of terrorists and weapons.

o Authorizes 1,000 new, full-time port of entry inspectors over the next four years and the training of 1,500 additional K-9 units over the next five years.

o Establishes physical barriers and incorporates widespread, state-of-the-art surveillance technology, including cameras, sensors, radar, satellite, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), in order to ensure one hundred percent coverage of our borders.

Eliminating the “Catch and Release” Practice

Ø This year alone, some 115,000 illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico have been apprehended by the Border Patrol, only to be released due to a lack of detention space. Realizing that this so-called “catch and release” practice presents a clear danger to our nation’s homeland security efforts, the bill:

o Requires mandatory detention for all illegal immigrants who are apprehended at U.S. land borders attempting to cross illegally, by Oct. 1, 2006.

o Requires all illegal immigrants apprehended at U.S. borders to remain in custody until removal from the country.

o Requires that DHS use every available detention bed, in addition to authorizing new detention space and contracting with state and local jails for additional space.

o Requires that, in the interim period before Oct. 1, 2006, illegal immigrants who are released pending an immigration removal hearing will have to post bond of at least $5,000.

Effectively Organizing the Border Security Agencies Within DHS

Ø Recognizing the need to eliminate a number of identified organizational, operational, and fiscal problems and poor communication between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the two main border security agencies within DHS, the bill:

o Requires the Secretary to take immediate action to address the lack of coordination between ICE and CBP by requiring improved intelligence sharing and implementing measures to determine the effectiveness of the Department’s border security efforts.

o Places Air and Marine Operations (AMO) directly under the authority of the Secretary, eliminating current bureaucracy and allowing for a more flexible, coordinated air program capable of providing tracking, deterrence, rapid response, and investigative support to multiple DHS agencies.

Promoting International Policies to Deter Illegal Immigration

Ø In addition to taking action domestically, the bill promotes international policies to help deter illegal immigration and protect valid claims of asylum. This includes:

o Requiring DHS to report to Congress on the progress of cross-border security agreements signed between Mexico and Canada and the United States, including the Smart Border Accord and the Security Partnership for Prosperity.

o Authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to refuse visas to foreign nationals from countries that deny or delay the repatriation of their own nationals.

o Protecting valid claims of asylum and fear of persecution through a review of the current Border Patrol training protocol, and taking measures to ensure integrity of the process.

[solvs]

Most of which is already being done, rather ineffectively. It's the locking them up and building a giant wall part that bothers us, as well it should. Not to mention what they could do to churches and church members. And how exactly would we be paying for all of these extra jails? And staff? And more border guards? And the wall? Why not just increase funding to those programs that are already in place? Like I said, something should be done about illegal immigration, but this is not it. Hitting a fly with a sledgehammer (and missing).

I'm in San Fernando right now and all the kids from the local schools walked out in protest today. They were marching down the streets earlier. Maybe just a way to get out of school, but maybe not. I don't know anyone here who supports the resolution, and we're affected by immigration more than most other places.

Edit: Does this part seem weird to anyone else? Places Air and Marine Operations (AMO) directly under the authority of the Secretary, eliminating current bureaucracy and allowing for a more flexible, coordinated air program capable of providing tracking, deterrence, rapid response, and investigative support to multiple DHS agencies.

[pseudobrit]

H.R. 4437 if anyone is wondering exactly what it says:

http://www.gop.gov/Committeecentral/bills/hr4437.asp

Summary...
[snip]

Funny I don't see a word about how this law would make it a crime (punishable with up to 5 years in prison) to give water, first aid or shelter to an illegal immigrant.

[Sec. 202 of 4437] (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109EgY8TT:e43647:) Here's the actual bill, not some rehashed, glossed over **** from a partisan stinkhole.

The inhuman condition marches on.

[solvs]

[Sec. 202 of 4437] (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109EgY8TT:e43647:) Here's the actual bill
Your link is broken, but it's easy to find what you meant. I thought I had read more than what was posted above (just skimmed over that, I already read most of the actual thing the other day). There's some scary stuff in there I missed the first time. This is even worse than I thought.

I'd say it's a good idea on paper, but it isn't even that.

[Airforce]

Funny I don't see a word about how this law would make it a crime (punishable with up to 5 years in prison) to give water, first aid or shelter to an illegal immigrant.

Helping someone commit a criminal act deserves a punishment. If they want water, first aid, or shelter, circle back.

[zimv20]

Helping someone commit a criminal act deserves a punishment.
somehow i think that handing a random person a glass of water and helping to plot an armed bank robbery are different.

is giving to be a dangerous activity? should i be checking passports before giving a homeless person a quarter? will soup kitchens hire the INS to screen hungry people? should i stop giving people directions?

have you ever moved from the left lane to allow a speeder to pass you?

[Airforce]

somehow i think that handing a random person a glass of water and helping to plot an armed bank robbery are different.

With the help being given, the person can make it over here safely. It's like giving the bank robber the gun.

That person could be a future criminal, gang member, ect. Who knows what you could be helping with considering how easy illegals are willing to break the law.

[aquajet]

is giving to be a dangerous activity? should i be checking passports before giving a homeless person a quarter? will soup kitchens hire the INS to screen hungry people? should i stop giving people directions?

These are interesting questions. Even more interesting are the answers, because those who must answer these questions will come across as either an asshole or inconsistent.

[XNine]

somehow i think that handing a random person a glass of water and helping to plot an armed bank robbery are different.

is giving to be a dangerous activity? should i be checking passports before giving a homeless person a quarter? will soup kitchens hire the INS to screen hungry people? should i stop giving people directions?

have you ever moved from the left lane to allow a speeder to pass you?

Ooooo, ZING!

I love the way your annoyance/animosity/frustration comes out. It almost makes me horny in a hetero kind of way...

[zimv20]

With the help being given, the person can make it over here safely.
but the proposed law isn't limited to help crossing. i'm talking about me, in chicago. maybe i'm walking home from a restaurant with a doggie bag. a homeless guy asks for money, i give him my leftovers instead (this happened recently).

now let's say he's here illegally. am i culpable? do you think i should be in legal trouble for this?

[zimv20]

I love the way your annoyance/animosity/frustration comes out.
i am a sarcastic bastard.

[skunk]

I bet the Good Samaritan didn't know he was an accessory to crime.

[IJ Reilly]

i am a sarcastic bastard.

The hell you are.

[Airforce]

but the proposed law isn't limited to help crossing. i'm talking about me, in chicago. maybe i'm walking home from a restaurant with a doggie bag. a homeless guy asks for money, i give him my leftovers instead (this happened recently).

now let's say he's here illegally. am i culpable? do you think i should be in legal trouble for this?

Stricter laws forbiding begging :) Problem solved, no worries :p

[skunk]

Stricter laws forbiding begging :) Problem solved, no worries :pNo, but seriously. Is common humanity a crime?

[zimv20]

The hell you are.
you're right. my parents did get married in time.

[IJ Reilly]

No, but seriously. Is common humanity a crime?

No, but it bloody well ought to be. Helping people in need just makes them lazy.

Ack! Another Ayn Rand flashback.

Sorry.

[IJ Reilly]

you're right. my parents did get married in time.

That takes care of half of it.

[skunk]

you're right. my parents did get married in time.Ah, but how do you know they're your parents? You might be a foundling.;)

[zimv20]

Ah, but how do you know they're your parents?
i have wondered about my dad's side...

[aquajet]

I bet the Good Samaritan didn't know he was an accessory to crime.


Way to make the Samaritans feel abettor about themselves.

[IJ Reilly]

Ah, but how do you know they're your parents? You might be a foundling.;)

Foundling, isn't that considered rude where you come from?

[skunk]

Foundling, isn't that considered rude where you come from?Gadd, you're right.

[IJ Reilly]

Gadd, you're right.

So cut it out already.

[skunk]

So cut it out already.That's rich, from the land of the Foundling Fathers.

[IJ Reilly]

That's rich, from the land of the Foundling Fathers.

If you look closely, you can see them orphan the distance.

[solvs]

If they want water, first aid, or shelter, circle back.
Stricter laws forbiding begging :)
How very Christian of you. I especially love the smilie. Everyone does know these are people we're talking about right? Just checking. And I'm kinda upset I had to ask.

[skunk]

If you look closely, you can see them orphan the distance.At this distance, I can only see them orphan on.

[Airforce]

How very Christian of you. I especially love the smilie. Everyone does know these are people we're talking about right? Just checking. And I'm kinda upset I had to ask.

I'm Jewish.

[skunk]

I'm Jewish.So was Jesus, apparently.

[blackfox]

With the help being given, the person can make it over here safely. It's like giving the bank robber the gun.

That person could be a future criminal, gang member, ect. Who knows what you could be helping with considering how easy illegals are willing to break the law.
Your ability to make crappy assumptions is rivaled only by your inability to empathize with the human condition.

I pity you. You must have quite an axe to grind and/or be very afraid.

So, I am not sure I will trust your opinions regarding what measures should be taken to solve/mitigate our immigration problem, because the holes in your logic are large enough to drive several trucks full of illegal immigrants through.

[Airforce]

Your ability to make crappy assumptions is rivaled only by your inability to empathize with the human condition.

I pity you. You must have quite an axe to grind and/or be very afraid.

So, I am not sure I will trust your opinions regarding what measures should be taken to solve/mitigate our immigration problem, because the holes in your logic are large enough to drive several trucks full of illegal immigrants through.

Bro, that means just about 2 pints of nothing to me. Show your pity to someone who cares.

I don't want illegals in the U.S.

[skunk]

I don't want illegals in the U.S.Who's going to do your dirty work, then?

[solvs]

I'm Jewish.
Me too. Half at least, on my Mother's side. We still believe we have at least some responsibility for our fellow man. Even if they aren't from this country. I see a man in need, I don't ask for his green card.

And I still don't see how all of these "deterrents" are going to fix the problem, as there are already (underfunded) laws against helping someone illegally get into this country.

[solvs]

I don't want illegals in the U.S.
And as I've been saying, sympathy aside, how does this actually accomplish that?

[XNine]

So was Jesus, apparently.

So was Hitler's Mother's Doctor.

[skunk]

So was Hitler's Mother's Doctor.I think we have been here before...:D

[zimv20]

msnbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12034586/)


Senate panel passes bill allowing guest workers

Sweeping immigration legislation faces stiff opposition in the House

WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee approved election-year immigration legislation Monday that clears the way for millions of undocumented workers to seek U.S. citizenship without having to first leave the country.

After days of street demonstrations that stretched from California to the grounds of the U.S. Capitol, the committee also voted to strip out proposed criminal penalties for residents found to be in this country illegally.

The panel’s vote cleared the way for the full Senate to begin debate Tuesday on the emotional immigration issue.

“All Americans wanted fairness, and they got it this evening,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who played a pivotal role in drafting the legislation. The bill was approved 12-6.

Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., voted for the bill but signaled that some of the provisions could well be changed by the full Senate.

In general, the bill is designed to strengthen border patrol, create new opportunities for so-called guest workers and determine the legal future of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

Democrats' advantage

At several critical points, committee Democrats were united while Republicans splintered. In general, GOP Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Mike DeWine of Ohio, who is seeking re-election this fall, sided with Democrats.

That gave Democrats a majority that allowed them to shape the bill to their liking.

Earlier Monday, as more than a thousand immigration rights activists rallied outside the Capitol, the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that would protect church and charitable groups, as well as individuals, from criminal prosecution for providing food, shelter, medical care and counseling to undocumented immigrants.

“Charitable organizations, like individuals, should be able to provide humanitarian assistance to immigrants without fearing prosecution,” Durbin said.

The House voted in December to make offers of such non-emergency aid a felony. The Senate panel also rejected a proposal Wednesday by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to require humanitarian groups providing aid to illegal immigrants to register with the Department of Homeland Security.

(more)

emphasis mine.

[blackfox]

Bro, that means just about 2 pints of nothing to me. Show your pity to someone who cares.

I don't want illegals in the U.S.
Well, go quit your job and stand guard at the border with a gun and a Bible then - if that is what you believe, well go do something about it.

Just don't expect other people to do the dirty work for you. It is self-centered people like you that preclude the possibility of a real solution to a complex problem such as this.

Of course, I'm sure you will ignore me...after all, I'm an immigrant - from the UK. Even though I come from a middle-class family and was well-educated, it might surprise you how difficult it was to gain permanent residence in this country. Myself, and my siblings were at one time or another, all illegal immigrants here - but we now all contribute to American society. What America do you have in your head exactly? This is a country based on immigration.

[Airforce]

Well, go quit your job and stand guard at the border with a gun and a Bible then - if that is what you believe, well go do something about it.

What the hell would I be doing with a bible?

Of course, I'm sure you will ignore me

Sure will.

[skunk]

What the hell would I be doing with a bible?Studying Comparative Religion?

Reading up about Samaritans?

[aquajet]

I don't want illegals in the U.S.

You still haven't told us why you feel this way. All you've told us is:

Illegals are a burden...

...yet you still haven't proven to us how. In fact, zimv linked to an article that explains how illegals are actually an asset by contributing billions of dollars to the Social Security fund.

[blackfox]

What the hell would I be doing with a bible?

Well, you could be looking at the Old Testament and contemplating the irony that the Israelites were a band of roving illegal immigrants fleeing persecution and otherwise intolerable living conditions.

Or you could look for ways to have me smited.

[XNine]

I think we have been here before...:D

:D

No, seriously, this thread is going to hell every other second.

Airforce. Let me guess. You're a pigeon, right? A fly-boy? A goose?
Well, let me tell you something. I haven't flown over "enemy territory" or anything, and even as full of hate as I am, I still try to see the other side of the fence... I think you should try as well.

[Airforce]

...yet you still haven't proven to us how. In fact, zimv linked to an article that explains how illegals are actually an asset by contributing billions of dollars to the Social Security fund.

Well which problems would you like to be shown?

overcrowded and under-funded schools
increased health care costs
degraded health care service
higher auto insurance premiums
unemployment
lowered wages
vote fraud
increased crime
illegal drugs

The negatives outway the positives.

[blackfox]

Well which problems would you like to be shown?

overcrowded and under-funded schools
increased health care costs
degraded health care service
higher auto insurance premiums
unemployment
lowered wages
vote fraud
increased crime
illegal drugs

The negatives outway the positives.yeah, like we need illegal imigrants to have those problems.

Hilarious.

[Airforce]

yeah, like we need illegal imigrants to have those problems.

Hilarious.

We sure the hell don't need them contributing either.

[solvs]

emphasis mine.
Thank you Dick Durbin. Nice that the neocons couldn't sneak in that part about the churches, kinda goes against the whole "religious right" thing. My Grandparent we're immigrants. I'd assume that most of yours were as well, or at least someone in your families were somewhere along the line. Is it me, or does this have more to do with where these immigrants are coming from? I know this white elephant has been touched upon briefly in this thread, but I know we're all thinking it.

And still, no one has answered my question as to exactly how this law would have actually helped anything.

[skunk]

Well which problems would you like to be shown?

overcrowded and under-funded schools
increased health care costs
degraded health care service
higher auto insurance premiums
unemployment
lowered wages
vote fraud
increased crime
illegal drugs

The negatives outway the positives.Oh, the Irony! I can hardly stand it. Here you are, proclaiming your Jewishness and scapegoating "illegal aliens" for all your perceived ills. Time for some concentration camps? Is this what you have in mind?

Feds Schedule $385 Million Concentration Camp To Be Built By Halliburton Subsidiary

By CLANCY SIGAL

I am not one of the "Hitler is here!" crowd. From personal experience of federal-and-local harassment, threats of jail, being run off the road by J. Edgar's hotrodders, blacklisting from jobs and a long look at my FBI file, where I'm listed as a lefthanded, lisping incendiary leader of a mysterious Red 'Cell With No Name' alias the 'Omega cell' (I'm not kidding), I have felt the heavy hand of the ignoramus on my shoulder. Even unto emigration to Britain where, at one time, I enjoyed the attention of Scotland Yard, Special Branch, MI5, U.S. army counter-intelligence, CIA, and U.S. naval intelligence--all at the same time, stumbling over each other as in an Inspector Clouseau movie.

So you get hardened. Shrug it off. Resist paranoia. Fill your wallet with the telephone numbers of lawyers. And wait for something to happen when nothing actually does, at least to you.

Then your eye falls on a barely-noticed article in a local Southern California newspaper. You call the reporter, and he guides you to his reputable source. And the stomach-tickling fears start all over again, especially when--coincidentally--a Germanophile friend researching in the archives digs up the following from a Munich newspaper dated 1933.

First, the American news item:

The federal government has awarded a $385 million contract for the construction of 'temporary detention facilities' inside the United States as part of the Immigration Service's Detention and Removal Program. The contract was given to Kellogg, Root & Brown, a subsidiary of Halliburton. The camps would be used in the event of an "emergency", said Jamie Zuieback, an Immigration service official.

The following article appeared in a Munich newspaper in 1933 to mark the "grand opening" of Dachau, Germany's first concentration camp. This month marks the 73d anniversary:

Münchner Neueste Nachrichten,

Tuesday, March 21, 1933

A Concentration Camp for Political Prisoners in the Dachau Area

In a statement to the press, Himmler, Munich's Chief of Police announced:

On Wednesday the first concentration camp will be opened near Dachau. It has a capacity of 5000 people. Here, all communist and-so far as is necessary- Reichsbanner and Marxist officials, who endanger the security of the state, will be assembled. In the long run, if government administration is not to be very burdened, it is not possible to allow individual communist officials to remain in court custody. On the other hand, it is also not possible to allow these officials their freedom again. Each time we have attempted this, the result was that they again tried to agitate and organize. We have taken these measures without concern for each pedantic objection encountered, in the conviction that we act to calm the concerns of the nation's people, and in accordance with their aims.

Himmler gave assurance that in each individual case, preventive custody will not be maintained longer than necessary. It is obvious, however, that the astonishingly large quantity of material evidence seized will take a long time to be examined. This police will only be delayed, if they are continually asked when this or that person in preventive custody will be released. The incorrectness of rumors frequently spread regarding the treatment of prisoners is shown by the fact that for those prisoners who requested it, for example, Dr. Gerlich and Frhr. v. Aretin, counseling by priests is supported and approved without hesitation.

[solvs]

So that's what that was for. Peachy. First they came for the immigrants.

[Airforce]

Here you are, proclaiming your Jewishness
[/indent]


Huh? Someone said I was Christian and I said I wasn't. Get over it.

[aquajet]

Well which problems would you like to be shown?

overcrowded and under-funded schools
increased health care costs
degraded health care service
higher auto insurance premiums
unemployment
lowered wages
vote fraud
increased crime
illegal drugs

The negatives outway the positives.

And each of these social problems are a direct result of illegal immigration?

[pseudobrit]

Well which problems would you like to be shown?

overcrowded and under-funded schools
increased health care costs
degraded health care service
higher auto insurance premiums
unemployment
lowered wages
vote fraud
increased crime
illegal drugs

The negatives outway the positives.

A link or two would go a "longweigh" to proving your assertions.

[XNine]

So that's what that was for. Peachy. First they came for the immigrants.

Then they saw the immigrants...

[aquajet]

A link or two would go a "longweigh" to proving your assertions.

You sure have a whey about you pseudo.

[solvs]

Huh? Someone said I was Christian and I said I wasn't. Get over it.
I didn't say you were Christian, I was being sarcastic because you were being glib. I wouldn't call myself a Christian necessarily, but I still hold the same basic value system. You should be happy now though. Thanks to the Senate, all those immigrants who want to be here to work will be legal. So boom, fewer illegal immigrants, problem solved.

At least better than that House bill, which would have just caused more problems than it solved IMO.

[blackfox]

We sure the hell don't need them contributing either.
But that approach doesn't accomplish squat. Can I cure Cancer by banning cigarettes?

As to the question of Mexican immigration, as mentioned previously in this thread, with the advent of NAFTA and the free movement of goods and capital across our southern border, it seems ridiculous not to have free labor movement. Economically (and increasingly cultural) speaking, the SW is already aligned towards Latin America, much as the Pacific NW is aligned towards the Pacific Rim. This is all natural consequence of policy and demographics.

As an aside, you might wonder about the wisdom of inadvertently subsidizing Mexico (as many workers here send money back to Mexico) as it attempts to reform itself as a country.

Since Mexico will always be our neighbor, what do you suppose might happen if Mexico was to collapse and become a failed-state, like Columbia was/is? Would we feel comfortable having a dangerous, anarchiac country which might provide a haven and vector for terrorist activities conected with drug revenue? Would we not want to support both the Mexican Government and receive the goodwill of it's people to forstall this possibility?

Just a thought.

[pseudobrit]

I'm Jewish.

Ah, so I guess you figure you should only journey through the desert when God commands it.

If He wanted those Mexicans to live, there'd be manna from heaven.

[zimv20]

Well which problems would you like to be shown?

overcrowded and under-funded schools
increased health care costs
degraded health care service
higher auto insurance premiums
unemployment
lowered wages
vote fraud
increased crime
illegal drugs

The negatives outway the positives.
merely listing social ills does not an argument make. prove the link -- with links to reputable studies, for example -- with illegal immigration.

short of that, what reason do i have to not write you off as a xenophobic racist?

[Airforce]

merely listing social ills does not an argument make. prove the link -- with links to reputable studies, for example -- with illegal immigration.

short of that, what reason do i have to not write you off as a xenophobic racist?

Racist? What kind of dumb comment is that? What does race have to do with illegals?

Here's a link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

Want more? Follow the links I posted on the second page. I'm not here to teach anyone about these things. If you watched the news once or twice, you'd know.

[XNine]

Racist? What kind of dumb comment is that? What does race have to do with illegals?

Here's a link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

Want more? Follow the links I posted on the second page. I'm not here to teach anyone about these things. If you watched the news once or twice, you'd know.

That link for Conservative T-shirts on that page is awesome man! Thanks!

[Airforce]

That link for Conservative T-shirts on that page is awesome man! Thanks!

No problem.

[solvs]

Here's a link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275
Well, besides the obvious (read the rest of the site), that does tell us that there are problems with our healthcare and that it might be helpful for workers to have better ways to become legal than "anchor babies". Which I already knew. There are problems with illegal immigration. But how does that make the proposed law good? Seems to me it would just cost us more money and not fix the problem. As well as creating more. Seems the new bill would be a better fit, and according to that same site you linked, they seem to agree.

[2nyRiggz]

Bro, that means just about 2 pints of nothing to me. Show your pity to someone who cares.

I don't want illegals in the U.S.

Sounds like you will be standing on the boarder with your guns ready....who cares what u want...its what the nation needs. I see no problem with them coming for a better life..hell the country was built on it and if the government would give them half the chance i bet you they would become legal....the system is lacking.

If you don't care then just leave it be..You are not adding anything but flames


Bless

[zimv20]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

no, we need reputable links.

don't tell me you're on those who can't separate the concepts of good journalism and left/right-ism dogma.

[pseudobrit]

I'm not here to teach anyone about these things.

If you didn't come here prepared to validate your claims then you can leave.

[Airforce]

I see no problem with them coming for a better life

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

An older article.

You may not see the problems, but I do as well as many others. Come through the legal way and all is fine. My family was able to do it as well as millions of others.

[tristan]

The issue isn't whether illegal immigration is good or bad, it's about immigration reform. In our current system, we send foreign students home after they graduate from one of our schools with a PhD, but we let people stream across our border with less controls than a ride at disneyland.

Yes, I would like the US Government to have some control over who comes into this country. That doesn't make me a bigot or a fascist - just a person who's concerned about border security and the future composition of the country's population. Then I would expand legal immigration, and make sure that people from lots of different countries, especially those with an education and professional skills, are able to come here and become a part of our society.

[pseudobrit]

My family was able to do it as well as millions of others.

You have no idea how things have changed since Ellis Island, do you?

[Airforce]

no, we need reputable links.

don't tell me you're on those who can't separate the concepts of good journalism and left/right-ism dogma.

First link that popped up on google. I'm a bit busy ;) The health care problem is well known. I'm actually surprised any of y'all would doubt that.

[zimv20]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

no, no -- reputable. anyone can write for about.com, you may as well try to quote someone here.

try again.

[zimv20]

I'm a bit busy ;) The health care problem is well known.
dude, that's weak. either support your point or stop pushing it. it's not our job to look up your data for you. "well known" doesn't cut it here, unless we're talking about how the earth isn't flat.

[Peterkro]

Hi Silverback,glad to see you back.;)

[Thomas Veil]

:p

[solvs]

Come through the legal way and all is fine. My family was able to do it as well as millions of others.
So you're ok with the law the Senate wants to pass right? The other one proposed here doesn't fix anything. It just criminalizes something that's already illegal without providing funding and goes after people who may not have intended to commit a crime. I don't understand why you're still arguing about the overall issue when the argument here is about this particular law itself.

[solvs]

Hi Silverback,glad to see you back.;)
Only if he wants to blow them up. Or was that another one. I forget.

[IJ Reilly]

At this distance, I can only see them orphan on.

So, do you come here orphan?

[pseudobrit]

So, do you come here orphan?

Let's try to foster some real debate.

[blackfox]

Let's try to foster some real debate.
It's forthcoming. No need to get you panties oliver twist.

[pseudobrit]

It's forthcoming. No need to get you panties oliver twist.

I don't want to hear little jokes about an orphan anymore.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't want to hear little jokes about an orphan anymore.

Not even a little orphan any?

[Sayhey]

Not even a little orphan any?

OK, everybody, all together now, "The Sun will come out tomorrow... (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=75524138&s=143441&i=75524344)"

[takao]

The issue isn't whether illegal immigration is good or bad, it's about immigration reform. In our current system, we send foreign students home after they graduate from one of our schools with a PhD, but we let people stream across our border with less controls than a ride at disneyland.

thanks for that posting ... i'm kinda amazed how many people are defending illegal immigration flat out ... i don't know perhaps it's the US/UK history which was a huge immigration country from the beginning /huge empire across the world...
seriously all austrian with a passport which has been signed after a certain date and don't include biometrical information (which means pretty much every new one so far) have first call a 3 buck/minute hotline to get a confirm a date with the US embassy, go to Vienna and visit the Embassy personally and then still pay i ~150€ .. and that's for each person.. and of course even babies need their own passport and can't be listed in the mother's passport like 2 years ago ...

that aside it is already more money made with human trafficking in europe than with gun trafficking ..."Schleuser"/"Schlepper" are equipped with nightvision or even infrared googles/ cellular detection devices / digital encrypted radios and in many cases armed
excuse if i don't like to support criminals who are trading humans and cash in thousands of euros/dollars for each which in many cases gets invested in other trafficking businesses which in many cases is operated by the same people

sure the poor immigrants are also victims but seriously not having any serious consequences isn't stopping the demand in the countries the criminals are operating

(i wonder how many people in here actually had to do some border patrol service)

[skunk]

infrared googlesI like it, but what does it mean? :)

[solvs]

I like it, but what does it mean? :)
http://www.google.com/mars/ ;)

[applemacdude]

someone here is making a fool of themselves...

[Ugg]

thanks for that posting ... i'm kinda amazed how many people are defending illegal immigration flat out ... i don't know perhaps it's the US/UK history which was a huge immigration country from the beginning /huge empire across the world...
seriously all austrian with a passport which has been signed after a certain date and don't include biometrical information (which means pretty much every new one so far) have first call a 3 buck/minute hotline to get a confirm a date with the US embassy, go to Vienna and visit the Embassy personally and then still pay i ~150€ .. and that's for each person.. and of course even babies need their own passport and can't be listed in the mother's passport like 2 years ago ...

that aside it is already more money made with human trafficking in europe than with gun trafficking ..."Schleuser"/"Schlepper" are equipped with nightvision or even infrared googles/ cellular detection devices / digital encrypted radios and in many cases armed
excuse if i don't like to support criminals who are trading humans and cash in thousands of euros/dollars for each which in many cases gets invested in other trafficking businesses which in many cases is operated by the same people

sure the poor immigrants are also victims but seriously not having any serious consequences isn't stopping the demand in the countries the criminals are operating

(i wonder how many people in here actually had to do some border patrol service)

I don't know how citizenship was handled during Franz Josef's time but you can't exactly call his empire insignificant nor temporary :D

I think there's a difference between migrants to Europe and migrants to the US. The majority coming to the US are from Mexico and the next largest group are from Latin America. So, they have cultural and language in common unlike the plethora of immigrants from Africa, Eastern Europe, the ME and Asia that come to Europe.

The language alone allows them to band together in ways that most immigrants to Europe wouldn't be able to. Also, there's a great deal of respect for the majority of Hispanic immigrants in the US. They work hard and are currently opening more small businesses in the US than any other group of people. Ultimately, the US is a land of immigrants and they're tolerated and accepted more than in many European countries.

In the past, it has been very common to declare amnesties and those here illegally would be able to start the process towards citizenship. That hasn't happened for awhile so there's a big backlog now.

Having traveled through Chiapas and Quintana Roo, it's not hard to see why some Mexicans find the risks of crossing the border illegally so appealing.

[takao]

I don't know how citizenship was handled during Franz Josef's time but you can't exactly call his empire insignificant nor temporary :D
well compared to Karl V it was small and insignificant ;)
size 1914: 676.615 square km
todays Burma is about the same size.. which according to the CIA fact book is slightly smaller than Texas ;)
and the onlyimmigratio nwas towards Vienna which obviously stopped and led to a reduction of nearly 30-40% in city size over the war

Ultimately, the US is a land of immigrants and they're tolerated and accepted more than in many European countries.

well that was i was thinking.. after all nearly everybody in the US except a small minority are coming from a immigrant background while here it is more or less the reverse..
i mean my father was consider a foreigner because he grew up in Carinthia (and the family tree is afaik originally coming from somewhere in south-middle germany)which is 500 km away inside of Austria while on my mother side it was around my hometown for centuries (that's how i ended up with a rather atypical pretty stereotypical german sounding name for the region i grew up ;)

[zimv20]

krugman has some interesting things to say (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/opinion/31krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print) on the matter:


The Road to Dubai

For now, at least, the immigration issue is mainly hurting the Republican Party, which is divided between those who want to expel immigrants and those who want to exploit them. The only thing the two factions seem to have in common is mean-spiritedness.

But immigration remains a difficult issue for liberals. Let me say a bit more about the subject of my last column, the uncomfortable economics of immigration, then turn to what really worries me: the political implications of a large nonvoting work force.

About the economics: the crucial divide isn't between legal and illegal immigration; it's between high-skilled and low-skilled immigrants. High-skilled immigrants — say, software engineers from South Asia — are, by any criterion I can think of, good for America. But the effects of low-skilled immigration are mixed at best.

True, there are large benefits for the low-skilled migrants, who may find even a minimum-wage U.S. job a big step up. Immigration also raises the total income of native-born Americans, although reasonable estimates suggest that these gains amount to no more than a fraction of 1 percent.

But low-skilled immigration depresses the wages of less-skilled native-born Americans. And immigrants increase the demand for public services, including health care and education. Estimates indicate that low-skilled immigrants don't pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of providing these services.

All of these effects, except for the gains for the immigrants themselves, are fairly small. Some of my friends say that's the point I should stress: immigration is a wonderful thing for the immigrants, and claims that immigrants are undermining American workers and taxpayers are hugely overblown — end of story.

But it's important to be intellectually honest, even when it hurts. Moreover, what really worries me isn't the narrow economics — it's the political economy, the effects of having a disenfranchised labor force.

Imagine, for a moment, a future in which America becomes like Kuwait or Dubai, a country where a large fraction of the work force consists of illegal immigrants or foreigners on temporary visas — and neither group has the right to vote. Surely this would be a betrayal of our democratic ideals, of government of the people, by the people. Moreover, a political system in which many workers don't count is likely to ignore workers' interests: it's likely to have a weak social safety net and to spend too little on services like health care and education.

This isn't idle speculation. Countries with high immigration tend, other things equal, to have less generous welfare states than those with low immigration. U.S. cities with ethnically diverse populations — often the result of immigration — tend to have worse public services than those with more homogeneous populations.

Of course, America isn't Dubai. But we're moving in that direction. As of 2002, according to the Urban Institute, 14 percent of U.S. workers, and 20 percent of low-wage workers, were immigrants. Only a third of these immigrant workers were naturalized citizens. So we already have a large disenfranchised work force, and it's growing rapidly. The goal of immigration reform should be to reverse that trend.

So what do I think of the Senate Judiciary Committee's proposal, which is derived from a plan sponsored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy? I'm all in favor of one provision: offering those already here a possible route to permanent residency and citizenship. Since we aren't going to deport more than 10 million people, we need to integrate those people into our society.

But I'm puzzled by the plan to create a permanent guest-worker program, one that would admit 400,000 more workers a year (and you know that business interests would immediately start lobbying for an increase in that number). Isn't institutionalizing a disenfranchised work force a big step away from democracy?

For a hard-line economic conservative like Mr. McCain, the advantages to employers of a cheap work force may be more important than the violation of democratic principles. But why would someone like Mr. Kennedy go along? Is the point to help potential immigrants, or is it to buy support from business interests?

Either way, it's a dangerous route to go down. America's political system is already a lot less democratic in practice than it is on paper, and creating a permanent nonvoting working class would make things worse. The road to Dubai may be paved with good intentions.

[solvs]

For now, at least, the immigration issue is mainly hurting the Republican Party, which is divided between those who want to expel immigrants and those who want to exploit them.
That's the tall and the short of it. Anybody else think it's funny though the way the Reps have to walk that careful line of support and dissent. "We support the President 100%, unlike those dirty liberal traitors. Except for this. And Dubai. And Miers. But otherwise, we're completely behind him. Except we aren't."

In other words, they can simultaneously piss off moderates who are growing to dislike GW and fundies who support him even when he contradicts himself. Like they do with their Bibles. Hey, gotta believe in something.

[Ugg]

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5725028,00.html)

Here's a good article that underlines some of the issues that US cities have to deal with, both good and bad. The problem has gotten so large that there are no easy fixes.

ORANGE, Calif. (AP) - The hodgepodge of U.S. immigration laws, policies and practices is well-illustrated in this Southern California community of millionaires and blue-collar workers.

Last month, Orange police seized eight illegal immigrants waiting for work outside a Home Depot and turned them over to federal officials for deportation to Mexico. Not far away, a city-sponsored day laborer center helps employers find workers, some of them illegal.

The contrast encapsulates the pressures and competing demands on many cities around the country.

Often, politicians are under public pressure to crack down on illegal immigrants, who are frequently accused of loitering on street corners or living in dangerously overcrowded houses.

At the same time, politicians are facing demands - from business owners who need willing labor, and from an increasingly numerous and vocal Hispanic electorate - to help illegal immigrants earn a living and feed their families.

In Los Angeles County, the 29,000-person town of Maywood has fashioned itself as a sanctuary for immigrants. The city is 96 percent Hispanic, and 70 percent of its residents are not citizens, said Mayor Pro Tem Felipe Aguirre.

Officials recently disbanded a traffic control unit because it was perceived as a threat to illegal immigrants without driver's licenses, Police Chief Bruce Leflar said.

And three years ago, he said, the city ended its traffic checkpoints for driver's licenses, registration, insurance and drunken driving because they were catching a large number of illegal immigrants.

[blackfox]

This is such a complicated issue, I won't pretend to know what to do - but I do have some questions:

1. There is some argument as to whether illegal immigrants do the work the Americans refuse to do, and as such fill a necessary void in our economic structure. In some ways, this seems to be true, with a caveat: Americans refuse to do these jobs at the wage being offered . If the wages of many unskilled/low-skill jobs had not been stagnant for nearly a generation and paid $15-$20hr (with some benefits), Americans would be lining up.

Of course, many argue that this would contract those industries as higher wages would mean higher prices and less sales in a global marketplace. It may also lead to outsourcing. This may be true, I don't know. But it gets more complicated...

Because if these illegal workers are put on the path to legitimacy in the job-market, perhaps even eventual citizenship, then they will no longer want those jobs either and then you have more immigrants coming in to replace them and so on. This could lead to a quite an enlargement of the pool of workers, or the population in general, giving employers more power (with such an overabundance of supply), and straining our social services and resources (such as water). Is this good? Can it be avoided?

2. Why does this not apply to all skill-level jobs, not just the low-skilled set. Why do we not open competion for Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants and the like? IIRC, a few years back Doctors petioned Congress to stem the influx of foreign doctors to the US, as it was delating their wages - and they succeeded. In many cases it is difficult to gain employment in the high-skilled job market as an immigrant. Why the double standard?

If higher-skilled job wages decreased due to immigrant competion, would that not (in theory) free up money for employers to raise the wages of lower-skilled jobs so that one could live on them? Wouldn't Healthcare reform (properly done) also free up money to do the same?

I am nowhere near an economist - I am just asking here...

[Ugg]

This is such a complicated issue, I won't pretend to know what to do - but I do have some questions:

1. There is some argument as to whether illegal immigrants do the work the Americans refuse to do, and as such fill a necessary void in our economic structure. In some ways, this seems to be true, with a caveat: Americans refuse to do these jobs at the wage being offered . If the wages of many unskilled/low-skill jobs had not been stagnant for nearly a generation and paid $15-$20hr (with some benefits), Americans would be lining up.

Of course, many argue that this would contract those industries as higher wages would mean higher prices and less sales in a global marketplace. It may also lead to outsourcing. This may be true, I don't know. But it gets more complicated...

Because if these illegal workers are put on the path to legitimacy in the job-market, perhaps even eventual citizenship, then they will no longer want those jobs either and then you have more immigrants coming in to replace them and so on. This could lead to a quite an enlargement of the pool of workers, or the population in general, giving employers more power (with such an overabundance of supply), and straining our social services and resources (such as water). Is this good? Can it be avoided?

2. Why does this not apply to all skill-level jobs, not just the low-skilled set. Why do we not open competion for Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants and the like? IIRC, a few years back Doctors petioned Congress to stem the influx of foreign doctors to the US, as it was delating their wages - and they succeeded. In many cases it is difficult to gain employment in the high-skilled job market as an immigrant. Why the double standard?

If higher-skilled job wages decreased due to immigrant competion, would that not (in theory) free up money for employers to raise the wages of lower-skilled jobs so that one could live on them? Wouldn't Healthcare reform (properly done) also free up money to do the same?

I am nowhere near an economist - I am just asking here...

The reason the minimum wage hasn't increased is partly because of free market republicans but also because of a steady supply of immigrants, illegal or not that are willing to work for peanuts. I think it's important to look at what those jobs are too: agriculture, maintenance, construction, etc. Blue collar work is not viewed favorably by a large segment of the population. This article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/31/BAG5II0STI1.DTL) proves there's a problem. Many of these jobs simply can't be outsourced. Emptying waste baskets, vacuuming offices and building homes can only be done here. I think the majority of US jobs that can be outsourced, already have been.

The more we accept the flow of unhappy immigrants from south of the border, the less compelled their governments feel to change policies that induce the unhappiness. Rather than hoping for less corrupt and more effective governments, these people are voting with their feet. By denying them access to the US jobs market, we would in part be responsible for additional suffering but change, especially in Mexico has to come from within.

Higher paid workers have more clout and are more willing to write their congressmen or hire lobbyists. I also think that argument is not totally accurate as I believe that a large number of graduate students remain in the country. That would also suppress wages as the market is flooded with people more likely to work for lesser wages.

I do believe that immigration fuels a lot of the nation's ills. Immigrants are more willing to work any and all hours, therefore providing us access, 24/7 to whatever we wish.

I don't have any answers, just a lot of questions although I think the guestworker program would be beneficial to all.