Hello:

You right wingers are soooo wrong. You live in a fantasy world. You don't know how the real world works. We'd be better off if you came down to earth. Here's just a sampling of your wrongness:

The border: If we just cracked down on the border, we'll stop illegal aliens.

The drug war: If we just cracked down, we can end drug use.

The Iraq war: If we just cracked down on the insurgency, we can stop it.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha. You guys really crack me up.

excon

And your solution to end the woes of the world Mr. DemaCon?

And your solution to end the woes of the world Mr. DemaCon?Hello magdude:

Glad you asked. Here's the solution to:

The border; allow enough workers to legally enter, and then we can keep out the ones we don't want. Amnesty and citizenship for the one's already here.

The drug war; legalize and regulate,

The Iraq war; leave.

NEXT!

excon

Then vote for Hillary and your wish will be granted.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

Why should someone who entered this country as a criminal be granted amnesty, much less citizenship? They entered this country illegally, why should they be rewarded for that? Isn't that an insult to those who did it properly? I'm not saying, "ship 'em all home on a bus" but I don't think they should be rewarded with citizenship. Residency, sure, but citizenship, nope.

The drug war is tough because if you legalize you run into a lot of regulation problems. It's illegal to drink and drive, yes? How does a cop check your sobriety on the street when he pulls you over? Breath test. There is no such test for cocaine, pot, meth, etc. So what happens when someone high on coke gets pulled over? How does the cop quickly and reliably test for intoxication? Surely you don't think we should allow people to drive all hopped up on heroin?! :) That being said, I think the war on drugs is failing, but at this point, I don't see how we could legalize it and not have more problems than we have now.

The Iraq war, well we need to get out, but it has to be done properly. Right now the Iraqi govt is very fragile, and if we take off, it's possible extremist groups could move in an take over. That would spell trouble. The fact that we are there in the first place... well... that's another subject!

Residency, sure, but citizenship, nope.Hello jillian;

Sure, residency is cool. At least it takes into account the reality that we CAN'T ship 12 million people out of here.


Surely you don't think we should allow people to drive all hopped up on heroin. That being said, I think the war on drugs is failing, No, I didn't say driving while stoned was OK. I also don't think it's OK to steal for drugs in case you were wondering.

If it's failing shouldn't we try something else? Or should we continue to fail? Even a dumb rat will stop going down a tunnel if he doesn't find any cheese there.


the Iraqi govt is very fragile, and if we take off, it's possible extremist groups could move in an take over It hasn't yet been established, at least to me, that the govt ISN'T an extremist group themselves.

excon

No, shipping 12 million people out of here is unreasonable. Logistics aside, think of the cost?? I know there are a lot of people who "hate them illegals!" but how many of them would be willing to pay a significant tax to "get em out"? Probably not to many! In my opinion, imposing a fine, back taxes, whatever is acceptable, and give the people who do so the ability to apply to legal status. But, I think if you entered this country illegally, you should never be allowed to become a citizen. I go back and fourth about deporting people who have been here less than X-period of time, but it probably wouldn't work because they'd have to give themselves up. The illegals who are caught doing illegal things (drugs, assault, whatever) should be deported immediately. Our jails are crowded enough with US citizens, and maybe if someone thought they could get deported for boosting a car, they'd think twice!

I didn't think you were an advocate of driving stoned! :) I doubt most people are! I agree the "war on drugs" should be reformed, because it's not working as it stands. I don't know what the better solution would be, but legalization would cause a lot more problems. The laws on possession are a little silly; people who have an oz of pot are being locked up for years, which just overcrowds the jails and costs taxpayers money. Maybe the war needs to be directed more toward the big guys - the ones who bring in 600 kilos of heroin. Stupid teens caught with a dime bag can learn their lesson outside of jail!

You're right, the Iraqi govt has not fully established that they won't be extremist. What I was referring to was an outside group coming in (Al Quadia or something) and deciding to use Iraq as their base of operations. That's not to say the govt won't go that way anyway, but I'm trying to look on the positive side that they have a constitution and are giving democracy a shot. It's a mess over there for sure, and I don't think anyone has the right solution. I mean really, pull out and it can backfire, stay there and it can backfire. I'm glad I'm not president!

It will take at least 3,000 years to convert any Iraqi government from tribal to democratic. It stems back to Muhammad and his successors and the problem of which one was actually the one chosen by Muhammad to lead the Islamic world. Hence, the different tribes and their constant and long struggle to be the ultimate rulers of the middle east. It will never stop.
It is completely out of the hands of any Christian nation. If Bush can convert them all into Christians, He might have a chance! I don't think that will happen. We will never find a solution to that problem. We will just keep throwing dollars and American lives at it. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

magprob you're right that it will take a long time to get the Iraqi govt fully democratic (might not ever happen), but we can at least give them a push in the right direction. The people there will never be as "free" as we are in the US and other Western Worlds, but I think a lot of that stems from their difference in religious beliefs (Christian v Islam). A democratic govt which provides citizens with free and fair elections, mostly free of corruption, voting rights for all adults, widespread education, etc will take the country places it could never have imagined. If the govt has legitimacy with the Iraqi people, the nation has the potential to perform better on the global market. We can't force them, but we can nudge them in the right direction. It will be up to the Iraqi officials to convince the citizens it is possible to modernize. We as a Western nations (and being the big bad US) can't do that.

I don't think Bush could convert anyone to being Christian... maybe drive them away from it though!

It's a shame so much money and so many lives are being lost over there, but the fact is we are there and we have to help fix what we broke. How reasonable would it be to go in, destroy their govt and then pick up and leave? We probably can't give it a 100% fix, but we can at least give it a bandaid, maybe even a few stitches to keep it together.

Why does everyone keep saying that sending 12 million people home is impossible??

You do 100,000 a month till it is done?

But they all got here by thierself, if there is NO jobs at all, no welfare at all, they will go home by thierself, if they know they face jail time here if caught and they can't work. They will go home many by thierself,
** or maybe move to Canada where they can get all of those free welfare services there right?

But nothing will help until the border is closed, expect in a few years there will be 20 million, then 30 million.

Perhaps we should just bring the troops home from Iraq and invade Mexico and make it a state, or several states,

1. Got to hire people to track them down
2. Got to track them down
3. Got to prove they are illegal
4. Got to ship them and their whole families to their country of origin

There will always be jobs for illegals because people will always pull up to the 7-11 and hire them. In my area, there's a ton of immigrants (might be illegal, might not) who are pushing around ice cream carts on hot days and at community sports events. They make their own living. The welfare and public assistance thing, well... no, only legal residents and citizens should be getting that!

I don't know that illegal immigrants would go home; life here is often better than life in their home country, no matter how bad it is here. Plus we have a lot of "bleeding heart liberals" who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings!

Why does everyone keep saying that sending 12 million people home is impossible ???

Perhaps we should just bring the troops home from Iraq and invade Mexico and make it a state, or several states,

That's what we ought to do. I really want a beach house on Baja, without the Mexican police.

Hello:

You right wingers are soooo wrong. You live in a fantasy world. You don't know how the real world works. We'd be better off if you came down to earth. Here's just a sampling of your wrongness:

The border: If we just cracked down on the border, we'll stop illegal aliens.

The drug war: If we just cracked down, we can end drug use.

The Iraq war: If we just cracked down on the insurgency, we can stop it.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha. You guys really crack me up.

excon

I'm taking the bait

The border 1] got to close it first, wall and more troops
2] I think it would be inhumane and logistically impossible to track down and
Deport all illegals. I believe the majority want to work hard and make a
Better life for themselves.
3] No amnesty - voluntary registration. Health and criminal screening to
Qualify toward citizenship. Deport all the illegals in prison. No benefits for
Illegals. Penalties for corporations that hire illegals.

The drug war - mandatory rehab/ separate drying out prisons. No benefits [ health , ssi housing]. If you fail. I don't believe in legalizing. Legal drugs [ alcohol, pain meds, nicotine ] are abused also. Doesn't change the problem.

Iraq war - I don't know - I'm in favor of letting the Iraquis sink or swim and bringing our trrops home.

I want to live in a fantasy world :> Aldo Nova?



Grace and Peace

inthebox the only problem with not allowing benefits like health insurance to those who relapse is that relapse is a very common part of recovery. Besides, health insurance is privatized; users would just pay higher premiums, right? I do like your idea about separate prisons though. If we are going to jail pushers they are probably better off NOT being exposed to rapists, murderers, etc. Though then you have the problem of all the druggies in one place and getting in cahoots with one another.

excon

You continue to give us absolutes . If we can't stop all illegal border crossing you say we should not try at all. If we cannot interdict all the drugs we should not attempt it at all. By your logic we should not try to prevent murders because we will never be 100% successful in doing so.

These are not the point. I guarantee that if enough of the illegals were prevented from entering there would be far fewer attempts at it. That along with a crack down on employers ;national IDs that are not easily forgeable ,there would be a reduction in expectations by those who would attempt it . Thus making the illegal immigration problem manageable .

At that point we could logically determine what to do with existing illegals and have an honest debate about what our future immigration needs are .

The same rational applies to drug enforcement . Really the only question is if it's worth the effort . That is an honest debate ,but you know as well as I that tougher enforcement would reduce the illegal drug supply and abusers .

This would be the legislation I would propose :

It is a felony to be an illegal alien

Immigrants are to be :

In the country legally

Have the means to sustain themselves economically

Not destined to be burdens on society (no welfare services)

Of economic and social benefit to society

Of good character and have no criminal records

Contributors to the general well-being of the nation

Immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
Foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
Foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
Those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned.
Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment.

Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished.Foreigners who are deported and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics,"

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e. to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

Foreigners may purchase some property but can be restricted from purchasing choice real estate on the coast. Foreigners are prohibited from waving their national flag or in participating in protests against the country .

You might say these laws are unrealistic and harsh. But these are the very laws that the Mexican govt. has on the books. They deport more people crossing over their border with Guatemala then we do crossing our large border .

Hello again, tom:

I don't care what laws Mexico has, any more than you care what the UN thinks. We're NOT them.

I think we're different from the rest of the world. Dare I say - progressive? So, I think our laws should reflect that view. Indeed, I thought that view WAS reflected for all the world to see. Its inscribed somewhere, maybe on the Statue of Liberty, maybe on Ellis Island - I don't know - I don't care.

"Give us your weak, your tired, your hungry (your leaf blowers and your maids)......."

We've been happy having it that way for over 50 years. It didn't bother us then, and if the truth be told, it doesn't bother us now. What bothers us, is a border that terrorists can sneak across. And, it should.

However, we're not going to solve THAT problem as long as we call it something else, like an immigration problem. In order to solve THAT problem, we need to start speaking some truth around here. Here's some truth: There were no Mexicans on the planes that hit the towers.

Here's some more truth. You right wingers want people to cross legally (wink, wink), but our present immigration laws make that impossible for the average poor Mexican. Right now it costs about $5,000 and it takes about 5 years. That's not immigration. That's a blockade. Faced with an impossible task, you wonder why he takes the direct route to a job. I don't wonder.

So, rather than do nothing, I think we need to fix the immigration laws so that we can let in enough workers to blow our leaves and pick our lettuce. It shouldn't take more than a month and I don't know why it costs anything at all.

IF we did that, then we could be pretty sure that anybody sneaking in is not coming in to wash your dishes. I think we should guard against that with all our resources.

What do we do with those already here? Give 'em a path to citizenship - a real path. I know you want to punish them. Right wingers can't help themselves in that regard. They want to punish anybody who isn't rich. But, in the words of my friend Archie Bunker, stifle yourself, Edith.

excon

Yeah yeah

Su casa es mi casa

Quote by excon: "Give us your weak, your tired, your hungry (your leaf blowers and your maids)......."

Hooowwwwllllin baby!

inthebox agrees: good point , but a lot of hardcore drug abusers don't have private health insurance are on state medicaid.

You think so? I've heard medicaid is difficult to get on, which makes me think heavy users wouldn't put the effort into it. But I guess if you are addicted to pills you need some sort of insurance to get your fix...

excon I think the problem should be called an "illegal immigration" problem. People coming here legally isn't the issue, it's the people who come illegally that so many have a problem with. And, unfortunately for the legal immigrants, they get lumped into the illegal crowd because people think all Mexicans are illegal. Also that all people who speak Spanish are Mexican, for that matter (anyone ever here of Guatemala? Honduras? Venezuela? Guess not). I agree the method on legal entry needs to be changed; if there are good, hardworking people willing to come here why should they be prevented because of paperwork and backups? It seems silly. I still disagree that illegal immigrants should be eligible for citizenship, however...

Hey ex:


You right wingers are soooo wrong. You live in a fantasy world. You don't know how the real world works. We'd be better off if you came down to earth. Here's just a sampling of your wrongness:

Actually, this is a fantasy world (http://kucinich.us/node/578).


The border: If we just cracked down on the border, we'll stop illegal aliens.

I don't think we'll ever stop illegal aliens, but we can do better - much better.


The drug war: If we just cracked down, we can end drug use.


I don't think we'll ever end drug abuse, but we can do better - much better.


The Iraq war: If we just cracked down on the insurgency, we can stop it.

Now that's a much too simplified representation of what "wrong wingers" believe is the solution. But I'm telling you, force is the only thing the Jihadists understand.


Bwa, ha ha ha ha. You guys really crack me up.

At least we're good for something. :D

Maybe this'll crack you up (http://blog.otownhandyman.com/?p=415).

Steve (itsdb)

:p That video was excellent!

I'm just following your lead, excon.

Government public schools: why bother? Most of the kids come out dumber than a sack of hammers anyway.

Government controlled social security: The gov't has done such a wonderful job so far nothing will be left after the baby-boomers hit full force.

Minimum wage: make the minimum wage $20 an hour and require employers to provide full benefits and nobody will be poor.

Was wondering when you was going to show up. Tell the Wolverine to get his butt over here.

Will do, chief.

government public schools: why bother? Most of the kids come out dumber than a sack of hammers anyway.


Public schools aren't great, but if people have to pay to send their kids to school, a lot couldn't afford it. Free public education keeps our literacy rates up, which is important. The teaching programs need to be reformed and the schools should be more equal no matter where you are in the country. Students in Detroit should have the same educational opportunities as students in suburban areas. I think there should also be different programs for different skills - instead of designing the curriculum around the dumbest kids, design programs which cater to different skill sets so everyone gets challenged, just in different ways.


minimum wage: make the minimum wage $20 an hour and require employers to provide full benefits and nobody will be poor.


When you pay your employees more and provide them with free health care, your cost of doing business goes up, which makes your profits go down. Lower profits mean less money for reinvestment, research and development, technology, etc. So, companies would just raise their prices to compensate, and making $20/hr would be like making $4/hr now. That being said, there are tons of companies out there who could afford to pay their employees more and don't, but that's all part of a free market economy. If you want to make more money, work harder and get a better job. No jobs in your area? Move.

Yo, Excon, I hear you needed someone to straighten you out. So I came as soon as I heard. And from the looks of this post, I was none too soon. ;)



The border: If we just cracked down on the border, we'll stop illegal aliens.

Well, it would certainly help. A good strong wall or fence has managed to cut off 90-95% of all terorist activity coming from the West Bank into Israel. Why wouldn't it work for us?

But clamping down on the border is only part of the solution. We have to also disincentivise illegal immigration: stop giving illegals free education, healthcare and welfare, and stop giving them what are by their standards high-paying jobs. If we do that and also create a good strong wall on the border, the combination will slow immigration to a trickle, because there will be no reason for illegals to come here, and the risks will be too high to justify the rewards. Not only will it slow the flow over the border, it will also likely cause those already here to leave. We won't have to deport them. They'll deport themselves.


The drug war: If we just cracked down, we can end drug use.

Not end it, but certainly decrease it. Furthermore, a good strong wall at the Mexican border would have a strong effect on drug traffic into the USA too. Another good reason to crack down on the border.


The Iraq war: If we just cracked down on the insurgency, we can stop it.

Well... yeah. And it works. It always has. When Israel cracks down on the terrorists, terrorism decreases. When they ease off the terrorists and pull out of the area, that's when the bombs start going off. Cracking down on the terrorists is the only way to control it. Walking away sure as heck doesn't. The same is true of terrorism in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. Hunt them down and kill them, and they will no longer be a problem. Let up for a minute, and they attack.

Before we invaded Iraq, we had an average of 1-2 terrorist incidents in the USA per year every year since 1960. Since the invasion of Iraq, there hasn't been a single one. What changed? We are fighting the terrorists now. Before we weren't. Which means that terrorist activity is again responding to a crackdown, just as it always has. Which means that Bush's policy of cracking down on terrorism works just as advertised

Glad to be able to set you straight, old buddy.:D

Elliot

Hello, jillianleab


No, shipping 12 million people out of here is unreasonable. Logistics aside, think of the cost????? I know there are a lot of people who "hate them illegals!" but how many of them would be willing to pay a significant tax to "get em out"? Probably not to many!

And what is the cost of allowing them to stay?

According to a Heritage Foundation study, the cost of a low-wage illegal alien family is roughly $22,000 per year, assuming that they are actually paying taxes. A typical low-wage illegal alien family receives $32,000 in public assistance, healthcare, education, food stamps, etc. annually, and if they pay taxes at all, it is roughly in the $10,000 range. The cost of supporting 11 million illegals is roughly $242 billion per year.

If we assume an average working career of 40 years, that translates to $880,000 of support PER FAMILY over the next 40 years, even if they pay taxes. There are those who argue that the next generation will pay that back in the form of taxes. However, in order to pay that back, the children would have to earn over $62,000 per year, about $20,000 more than the national average... and do so for 40 years, and pay taxes on all of it. During which NEW ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE COMING TO THIS COUNTRY AND COSTING THE SAME THING THAT THE PARENTS OF THESE 2nd GENERATION WORKERS COST. There is no possible way that this cost will ever be recouped in the future.

Over the next 10 years, these low-skilled illegal immigrants are going to cost this country roughly $2.4 TRILLION. Our entire annual budget is only $2.3 trillion. This is potentially the biggest disaster to our economy since the Great Depression. We can barely afford to support our own low-skilled workers and their families. We do not need to be importing poverty from other countries to support.

So I would gladly be willing to pay bus fare for 11 million illegal immigrants to be deported, at roughly $250 one time rather than $22,000 per year for the next 40 years. That would be a one-time-only cost of $2,750,000,000, compared to $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. $2.75 billion for bus fare isn't even a blip on the radar of the US budget, especially when compared with the cost of keeping the illegals here.

Elliot

minimum wage: make the minimum wage $20 an hour and require employers to provide full benefits and nobody will be poor.

Huh? If you make the minimum wage $20 an hour, the result would be that most businesses that rely on low-wage employment will go out of business. Which means that the employees will no longer be employed. Which in turn means that unemployment will increase. Which means that poverty will increase. Increasing compensation doesn't decrease poverty... it does the exact opposite: it increases poverty levels. An increased minimum wage is the absolutely worst thing you can do (except increasing taxes) to decrease poverty.

Elliot

Emland you forgot to put the quotes around your statement!! Perhaps I need to read my own sig... oops.

ET I think illegal immigration needs to be stopped; at the very least slowed. I also think illegal immigrants should not be entitled to social service programs, public assistance, etc. The numbers you are quoting (which I'm trusting are accurate) make sense, and no doubt a significant drain on our economy is occurring because the govt is supporting illegals. So, if you eliminate the public aid, the cost of support reduces. I still don't think it's a practical solution to send all illegals home, however. In the US, if a woman gives birth to her child on US soil, that child can become a US citizen. My mother-in-law works in the birthing center of a hospital and has seen many illegals come here and give birth. It gives the mother a free ticket to stay. It also gives the father a good arguing point because if the mom doesn't work, the dad has to support the family. So, beyond that little problem, you still have to FIND all the immigrants, figure out where they came from, and arrange for them to get home (remember, not ALL illegals are from Mexico!). That requires hiring a team to round everyone up, and since we are the US, it means giving anyone who wants one (probably everyone) a trial, or at least an appearance before a judge to plead their case as to why they should get to stay. Where do you keep them until they are deported? Who watches them? Who feeds them? That all costs money. Then you have the transportation, paper-shuffling, logistics, etc. Sending them home leaves jobs empty, and there are lots of people who just can't cope without their Guatemalan housekeeper. There was a movie made a few years ago - "A Day Without Mexicans" I think it was called, where mysteriously all the Mexicans in the US vanished. It showed how much we rely on these immigrants on a daily basis. If you can find it, check it out (don't expect it to be funny though, it wasn't). So it's not just a bus ticket - there are a lot of other factors and costs too.

Should they be given amnesty? No. Should they be given a path to citizenship? No. Should they be given the opportunity to correct their wrong, pay a tax (fine, whatever you want to call it) and become legal immigrants? Yes. And I think if there is a simplified process by which we are allowing the illegals to become legal, after a certain time frame, any illegals found who have not begun their application process should be deported. Giving immigrants legal status will mean they pay taxes like everyone else, and can make more money and contribute to the economy instead of being a burden. Not all immigrants who come here are too dumb to do anything but pick oranges, they hold that job because it's all they can get. If they can legally make more money, they will be less reliant on social aid programs, and again, cause less of a financial burden.

I was wondering where you ended up. Glad I located you.

Shoot, you already know what I think, so I think I'll just stick with saying, "How ya been?"

DK

speechlesstx agrees: But then we're stuck with Mexico City... talk about increasing our carbon footprint! Willie for president? Can they make Air Force One run on BioWillie?

With Willie as President, we won't need airplanes to fly!

Hello again:

Attention -- Attention -- Attention

To all right thinking individuals out there (that would be correct instead of right), I apologize. I've invited a few old friends from Answerway to join our political discussion here, but I told them they would have to get up to speed on modern thought...

You know what?? They didn't. They're as Neanderthal as they've ever been, and I'm really, really glad they found me.

excon

Jillian,


So, if you eliminate the public aid, the cost of support reduces.

Not only that, but it takes away much of the incentive for illegals to come here in the first place.


In the US, if a woman gives birth to her child on US soil, that child can become a US citizen. My mother-in-law works in the birthing center of a hospital and has seen many illegals come here and give birth. It gives the mother a free ticket to stay. It also gives the father a good arguing point because if the mom doesn't work, the dad has to support the family.

It's called "anchor babies" and conservative legislators have been trying to change that law for decades to make it harder for illegal aliens to have babies in the USA that become automatic citizens, or to make it harder for illegals to use their child's citizenship status to remain the USA illegally.


So, beyond that little problem, you still have to FIND all the immigrants, figure out where they came from, and arrange for them to get home (remember, not ALL illegals are from Mexico!). That requires hiring a team to round everyone up, and since we are the US, it means giving anyone who wants one (probably everyone) a trial, or at least an appearance before a judge to plead their case as to why they should get to stay.

What are we spending billions of dollars for the Immigration and Naturalization Service for? We already have such teams. And there are already procedures in place for a hearing.


Where do you keep them until they are deported? Who watches them? Who feeds them? That all costs money.

Sure does... but its still a lot less than the cost of allowing them to stay indefinitely. As for a hearing, it should take no more than two minutes and go something like this:

INS Official: Do you have a green card to support your presence in the United States?

Alien: No, Sir.

INS: Is there an overriding reason that the normal rules of immigration do not apply to you?

Alien: No, Sir.

INS: You will be sent back home today.

Or---

Alien: Yes, Sir. I have a family here, including children who are legal US citizens.

INS: That is not an overriding reason. Your children are legal citizens and may stay in the USA if they and you wish it, o you may take them with you. However, you will be sent home today.

Or---

Alien: Yes, Sir. I'm a political refugee from (name of country).

INS: That is considered an overriding reason, and you will be allowed a formal hearing to present your evidence of political persecution and determination of your refugee status. You are directed to appear before us on (date). Please feel free to bring any evidence of your status to the hearing, at which time an officer or agent of the INS will hear your case.

Bottom, line: there is no reason for the process of a hearing to take days, weeks months and years. We aren't talking about a criminal trial here. We are talking about a quick hearing on the immigration status of the illegal alien. It should take minutes, not days, to complete that process. Hundreds, even thousands of aliens can be processed in a single day and sent home quickly or allowed to stay to plead their case in a more formal setting. There is no reason that the number of illegal aliens can't be reduced by the hundreds of thousands, even the millions, very quickly.


Then you have the transportation, paper-shuffling, logistics, etc.

All to be handled by the INS. The bureaucracy for this mess is already in place. They just have to start taking action to move the bureaucracy along.


Sending them home leaves jobs empty, and there are lots of people who just can't cope without their Guatemalan housekeeper.

Sorry, but I just can't get behind the employers on this one. Those empty jobs can be filled by citizens or legal residents. And if businesses are going to go bust because they can't fill the jobs by hiring legal workors, I have no sympathy for them. They were breaking the law in order to get ahead, and they deserve to go bust.


There was a movie made a few years ago - "A Day Without Mexicans" I think it was called, where mysteriously all the Mexicans in the US vanished. It showed how much we rely on these immigrants on a daily basis. If you can find it, check it out (don't expect it to be funny though, it wasn't). So it's not just a bus ticket - there are a lot of other factors and costs too.

You know what? The labor shortage would be made up in short order from unemployed legal laborers. Our economy is the most flexible in the world, and when we take an economic hit, we recover quickly.

There was a report put out a few years back by the Center for Immigration Studies called "How Much Is That Tomato In The Window" that showed that the cost of eliminating illegal alien labor from the production of fresh fruits and vegetables would be about 3%. In other words, inflation (at 4% per annum) is making prices of fresh produce rise faster than any change in labor practices would. The same is basically true of ALL areas of production in which illegal aliens are a part of the process. And while prices might rise by 3% due to eliminating illegal aliens (a one-time cost increase), the national budget would decrease by roughly 10% per annum, meaning that we would pay less in taxes, and come out way ahead, even in the first year. So, I'm sorry, but the argument that "we need illegal immigrant labor to keep costs down" is false. If illegal labor went away tomorrow, we would not only survive, we would THRIVE. Because if 11 million people no longer had to be fed in this country by our tax dollars, the prices of food would drop significantly. Legal residents and citizens without jobs would suddenly find 11 million new job openings. Taxes spent on welfare and education would drop by roughly $242 billion per year. The economy would boom from eliminating illegal aliens from the system.


Should they be given the opportunity to correct their wrong, pay a tax (fine, whatever you want to call it) and become legal immigrants? Yes.

Isn't that amnesty? Say three "Hail Mary's" give a donation to the government and you're forgiven for your sin. Sounds like amnesty to me.


And I think if there is a simplified process by which we are allowing the illegals to become legal, after a certain time frame, any illegals found who have not begun their application process should be deported.

I still don't understand why you talk about simplifying the process to legalize illegal aliens, but refuse to consider the posibility of simplifying the deportation process. And who would track which illegal aliens are following the process and which are not. If simply deporting them is too hard to accomplish because of the bureaucracy involved (as you have argued), then isn't the process of following who has and who has not been following the process toward legalization even more difficult?


Giving immigrants legal status will mean they pay taxes like everyone else, and can make more money and contribute to the economy instead of being a burden. Not all immigrants who come here are too dumb to do anything but pick oranges, they hold that job because it's all they can get. If they can legally make more money, they will be less reliant on social aid programs, and again, cause less of a financial burden.

Hate to disagree with you on this one, but studies have clearly shown that the vast majority of illegal aliens are uneducated. Most are illiterate in their original languages. Those who are educated are able to get jobs in their countries of origin and have no need to come here legally to support their families. The educated immigrants who come to this country usually come here with the proper paperwork and follow the process of legalization. Those who do not follow the rules come here illegally for a reason: either they can't find a job in their country of origin due to lack of skills, or they are criminals in their countries of origin, or they are political refugees. I can accept the political refugees. I can acept legal immigration. I cannot accept the importation of poverty and crime to this country from elsewhere. And I do not believe that a person who was a thief in Mexico can suddenly become an upright individual in the USA, or that an unskilled laborer can suddenly learn the skills to become less of a burden on the US economy. Especially when the majority of illegal aliens today refuse to integrate into American society. Especially when the whole Azlatan and La Raza movements are such a huge part of the immigration rights movement. And while you may be right about the skill levels of a few of the illegal immigrants, they are by far the minority of illegal aliens. So I don't buy that argument.

Elliot

Well at least we agree on a few issues! :)

I had forgotten the term "anchor babies", but yes, that's what I'm referring to. I knew there were representatives who want to eliminate that law, and I think it is a great idea. And you're right, taking away public aid takes away incentive to come here, and possibly to even stay here for many immigrants.

I'm aware of the INS and it's purpose, but I'm also aware that they are apparently not doing their jobs. Perhaps it is because of laziness, bureaucracy, underfunding, I don't know. The fact is, there are 12 million (appx) people in this country illegally, and that's out of control. And while I understand and agree that your scenario in the court room should be so quick, I don't think in reality it will ever happen that way. My husband told me about an article he read where an illegal immigrant was arrested (I don't remember the charges) and the deportation process was started. His defense lawyer (probably public defender) argued Successfully that sending him back to his home country would be cruel and unusual punishment. It's the people who think that way, and the special interest groups who scream about human rights violations which make me think deportation of 12 million people will not happen. Special interest groups are notorious for influencing our politicians, and when you cry "human rights violation" all sorts of ninnys and liberals will jump on board. I agree there are systems in place for deportation, and I totally agree they should be streamlined. BUT, if you are going to send INS agents out to round up 12 million people, you are talking an increase of man hours, paper processing, etc. Now, without knowing exact, verifiable numbers and laying out a realilistic scenario, it's impossible to say what the cost of such an operation would be. Maybe it would be less than keeping the illegals here, maybe not. But the fact is, it's going to cost money to do anything. I realize the immigrants here have committed a crime by entering the country illegally, and think they should be punished for it. But I also think there should be one last opportunity given to them to "fix" what they did wrong. Should they have done it right the first time? Absolutely. But I just can't see a reason to deport someone who is a contributing member of society. You will probably argue they are not contributing because they use social aid programs, use our free public schools and don't pay taxes, etc, and you are right. But, if given the opportunity, there is the potential for meaningful contributions to society and community.

I also don't feel sorry for companies who go bankrupt because they rely on migrant workers, but if the economy suffers because of these failed industries, it affects me. Then I care. I'm not saying we should keep illegal immigrants to keep prices down; if someone works a fair day, they should get a fair wage. If undocumented workers are given the chance to obtain legal status, they are entitled to fair wages, which yes, might make prices go up, etc, but at least then there are 12 million people in our country we have no information on and no way of controlling.

The amnesty granted under the Reagan administration only required immigrants to pay filing fees for paperwork and undergo criminal and medical exams. That's what I refer to when I'm saying "amnesty". I think the prior plan was too broad and didn't require or punish the wrongdoers sufficiently. It also gave a path from temporary residence to permanent residence and (I believe) to citizenship. That's wrong, just wrong. Temporary legal status I can go with, but permanent and then citizenship? I don't agree with that.

The entire system needs to be overhauled. The process for deportation needs to be simplified and the process for legal immigration needs to be simplified. If we "crack down" (that was for you, excon!) then maybe there will be less incentive to sneak across the border. If we create a process which allows people to come here legally, which can be completed in a streamlined manner, maybe that will encourage people to do so. If we have a streamlined process of deportation, it might just act as a deterrent to keep some people out. Yes there are immigrants who are draining the system, committing crimes, etc. But there are also immigrants who are here obeying the laws and working toward a better life. I have a friend who was brought here when he was 5 from China; his mom looked at him and said, "Your name is David now." And David he was. He went to school, graduated, got a job, went to college, traveled across the country, met a great girl and got married. His mom worked as a manager in a Chinese restaurant owned by a family member. Neither ever got in trouble with the law, or was on social aid. Why should they be deported? Shouldn't there be an "option b"?

I also agree that we should not be supportive of poverty and criminals coming into the country. That's why there needs to be better standards and better ways of PREVENTING illegal immigration (fences, security, etc) and PROMOTING legal immigration. But I disagree that someone with no skills is destined to remain unskilled. Anyone can learn, they just have to be given the opportunity. It is frustrating that so many of the immigrants will not integrate into US culture whatsoever. In fact, I went to Wal Mart to buy shampoo today, but couldn't because all the bottles were in Spanish. Not Spanish/English, just Spanish. No English bottles to be seen. I had no idea what I was buying, so I bought nothing. I know we don't have a national language, but come on, this was Wal Mart, and I don't live in a border state - I'm in flippin' VIRGINIA! Needless to say, it rubbed me the wrong way.

I want to add that this discussion has been very stimulating, and it is obvious you are well-read and well-researched. You believe what you believe for a real reason, not because Bono or Oprah or random-starlet-number-4 tells you that's what they think. But I think we've probably reached an impasse... There's no way I'm going to convince you to agree with me (which wasn't my intention, btw), and you aren't going to convince me to your line of thinking either. I bet neither one of us likes the current proposed reform plan, though. Am I right?

I bet neither one of us likes the current proposed reform plan, though. Am I right?

You can say that again.

And yes, I think we can both agree that the system needs to be overhauled. But where we seem to be in disagreement is over what direction such an overhaul should take.

This was indeed a great coversation. My compliments to you on some very well thought out positions. It's been a pleasure having this INTELLECTUAL conversation with you after years of dealing with some of the not-so-well-informed people over at answerway's Christianity board. (I'm sure excon has mentioned them in the past, and I'm also sure that he didn't do the true depths of their idiocy any justice at all.) You have been a pleasure to converse with.

Best wishes,

Elliot

excon agrees: What makes you think AW's idiots is any more bonkers than the ones we got here?

I can only go with direct experience, excon. And my experience conversing with Jillian was a pleasant surprise.

Elliot

Hello again, Elliot:

Well, I didn't mean Jillian. She's cool. But, just you wait...

excon

Probably helps that I'm not Christian! :)

I hope we are able to continue to fairly and intelligently debate many topics. It is always refreshing to have a conversation with someone who has opinions for a REASON and is willing to provide explanations as to WHY they believe such things.