HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Theres plenty of jobs that americans are doing, illegals are doing the work for less money and no benefits like health insurance, thats a big plus for buisness owners. So how do you compete in that enviroment, don't hire americans, unless they accept less money and no benefits. 643233[/snapback] Less money than what? If you are not working, you make no money...other than what the government gives you. Make it a requirement that to qualify for Medicaid or other welfare programs you must be working or have a hell of an excuse why you can't. Pick up trash in the park, sweep the streets, do something productive. The increase in prices that we may see would be offset to some extent by the savings in taxpayer funded benefits that illegal immigrants are currently receiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 It's currently a misdemeanor for the first time a person is caught. It is a felony from there on out. 643243[/snapback] Like I said...it's illegal, just not illegal enough. And what the !@#$ is that supposed to mean, a misdemeanor the "first time" they're caught, but a felony the second? "Oh, you're still here illegally, but this time it's serious." Who wrote these stupid laws? !@#$ it. Let's just shoot 'em all, and ship the Soylent Green to Ethiopia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Less money than what? If you are not working, you make no money...other than what the government gives you. Make it a requirement that to qualify for Medicaid or other welfare programs you must be working or have a hell of an excuse why you can't. Pick up trash in the park, sweep the streets, do something productive. The increase in prices that we may see would be offset to some extent by the savings in taxpayer funded benefits that illegal immigrants are currently receiving. 643281[/snapback] In the construction trades,Illegals are doing more then picking fruit and mowing lawns, they are now driving wages lower in the building trades, and benefits in those trades like health insurance are becoming extinct. I allways buy american vehicles, avoid wallmart, so my money would benefit america and americans. Now I have to compete with american buisness owners hiring cheap illegal labor. Actually we lost health insurance years ago, back when hmo's came in the cost kept going up till that benefit was dropped. I have used super glue to close lacerations, burns like hell, beats the $400 for 12 stitches, so we learn to deal without health insurance, now will have to deal with getting payed less, because that problem aint getting fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 And crooked contractors regularly try to take serious advantage of that, playing both ends. When I was involved in remediation I had a sub using picked up day labor that couldn't speak English, and charging me Union Labor costs. After I caught him, it ultimately had to go to court. Why? because I kicked him off the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 Who the hell are you replying to? If it's to the original post, then you're anger is pretty misplaced.Where in that post is he making any grandiose liberal statements? Where in that post is he parroting anything from your list of "mainstream media" (VABills interpretation = media with a liberal bias)? In fact, the post reads like he's just trying to elicit a reasonable discussion on the topic. We can't discuss these topics on a Politics, Public Policy board? 643244[/snapback] Thanks Johnny but VABills is part of the immigration problem, should send him back to where he or his family a couple of generations back came from. I see this debate on a couple of different levels, but the illega/ legal argument as a waste of time. I understand why folks try and get into this country by any means possible, the stupid felon label attachment means as much to the undocumented folks as it does to a drug addict. Actually a felony may mean more to the addict. However I do think a label attached to an undocumented alien should be able to be come up with to be able to track and prevent reentry. The real question is how to best deal with the migrant flows and how best to track folks coming in. The wall may be a step to partially prevent undocumented folks from entering. But the real problem is business that are always looking for short cuts willing to hire these folks. If you are going to label undocumented immigrants as illegals then you have to make it more than a felony for businesses and increase civil fines high enough to businesses that hire them to discourage the practice. Until this happens right wing self-righteous anger is hypocritical and probably racist. So much for all that human dignity puff crap the white house put out. Job issues are important and I can understand the frustration on that score, it is also a social issue. The same nasty responses were directed at the Irish, Italians and Germans and Chinese when they first came over, legally or illegally. A rational governmental response would help reduce some of this frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Thanks Johnny but VABills is part of the immigration, should send him back to where he or his family a couple of generations came from. I see this debate on a couple of different levels, but the illegal legal argument gets a little old. I understand why folks try and get into this country by any means possible, the stupid felon label attachment means as much to the undocumented folks as it does to a drug addict. Actually a felony may mean more to the addict. However I do thing a label attached to an undocumented alien should come up with to be able to track and prevent reentry. The real question is how to best deal with the migrant flows and how best to track folks coming in. The wall may be a step to partially prevent undocumented folks from entering. But the real problem is business that are always looking for short cuts willing to hire these folks. If you are going to undocumented immigrants as illegals then you have to make it more than a felony for businesses including increasing civil fines high enough to businesses that hire them to discourage the practice. Until this happens right wing self-righteous anger is hypocritical and probably racist. So much for all that human dignity puff crap the white house put out. Job issues are important and I can understand the frustration on that score, it is also a social issue. The same nasty responses were directed at the Irish, Italians and Germans and Chinese when they first came over, legally or illegally. A rational governmental response would help reduce some of this frustration. 643387[/snapback] Here's a WaPo article from last year outlining the McCain/Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill. The bill requires new investment in border security and technology. But it also allows employers to hire foreigners under a temporary visa program if they can prove they are unable to hire American workers for the same job. Visa-holders will be able to change jobs (which the discredited bracero guest-worker programs of the past did not allow); will be able to apply to stay (eliminating a potential source of new illegal immigration), and will be issued tamper-proof identity documents (ending the use of faked Social Security numbers). Most controversially -- but ultimately sensibly -- the bill allows illegal immigrants already here to regularize their status, but not easily; they would have to go to the end of the line, and that only after paying a hefty fine, staying employed for a prescribed period and paying back taxes. The bills' authors argue that this is not an amnesty, because it requires a recognition of wrongdoing. They also argue that establishing the temporary visa will prevent a new pool of illegal immigrants from arriving because it will become politically realistic to fine employers who continue to employ illegals. Most of all, this provision for illegal immigrants makes sense because any legislation that does not deal with the approximately 10 million illegals will ultimately result in more lawbreaking. Seems like a reasonable proposition for a solution. It recognizes workers already here (ie, recognizes that they fill a valuable role in society and doesn't treat them like terrorists/criminals) and gives them an incentive to enter the system. Employers not able to prove they can't hire anyone else to fill the job face stiffer penalties. This may come as a shock to some, but I don't necessarily have a problem with issuing "resident alien" cards, at least not to the extent that I have with the Real ID Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I worked for this guy in 90, who had a sub contract for cruz construction,who was rehabing the housing projects for HUD in boston, my boss hired illegal portugese workers who made $21 hour, they had to sign the check to him and then he payed them about $6 per hour. I didn't say anything, times were tough the local economy was in recession. He ended up stiffing me on a check, so I took his tools which equalled my pay. He threatened to call the cops, I threatened to call immigration. He never payed me and he never recieved the tools. The funny thing is, he was from portugal and he believed in socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 I worked for this guy in 90, who had a sub contract for cruz construction,who was rehabing the housing projects for HUD in boston, my boss hired illegal portugese workers who made $21 hour, they had to sign the check to him and then he payed them about $6 per hour. I didn't say anything, times were tough the local economy was in recession. He ended up stiffing me on a check, so I took his tools which equalled my pay. He threatened to call the cops, I threatened to call immigration. He never payed me and he never recieved the tools. The funny thing is, he was from portugal and he believed in socialism. 643429[/snapback] And that is another reason for a rational tracking and reporting law. Contractors or companies willing to hire are likely to break labor and tax laws on many levels. It might make them a little easier to catch and prosecute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I worked for this guy in 90, who had a sub contract for cruz construction,who was rehabing the housing projects for HUD in boston, my boss hired illegal portugese workers who made $21 hour, they had to sign the check to him and then he payed them about $6 per hour. I didn't say anything, times were tough the local economy was in recession. He ended up stiffing me on a check, so I took his tools which equalled my pay. He threatened to call the cops, I threatened to call immigration. He never payed me and he never recieved the tools. The funny thing is, he was from portugal and he believed in socialism. 643429[/snapback] This guy was playing percentages. He was riding the proposal horse, which didn't specify union vs. non-union, which wasn't that big of a deal, but did specify personnel. I accepted his bid based on so many laborers per day. I went out to the site one day and found three times as many people on site than he had bid. After I got invoiced, I held him to his original costs. He sued for the amount of people. I left the company in the meantime, but my old boss told me they settled in arbitration as the cost of defense would have ultimately ended up being more than the settlement. Ahh, America - Land of Opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Thanks Johnny but VABills is part of the immigration problem, should send him back to where he or his family a couple of generations back came from. I see this debate on a couple of different levels, but the illega/ legal argument as a waste of time. I understand why folks try and get into this country by any means possible, the stupid felon label attachment means as much to the undocumented folks as it does to a drug addict. Actually a felony may mean more to the addict. However I do think a label attached to an undocumented alien should be able to be come up with to be able to track and prevent reentry. The real question is how to best deal with the migrant flows and how best to track folks coming in. The wall may be a step to partially prevent undocumented folks from entering. But the real problem is business that are always looking for short cuts willing to hire these folks. If you are going to label undocumented immigrants as illegals then you have to make it more than a felony for businesses and increase civil fines high enough to businesses that hire them to discourage the practice. Until this happens right wing self-righteous anger is hypocritical and probably racist. So much for all that human dignity puff crap the white house put out. Job issues are important and I can understand the frustration on that score, it is also a social issue. The same nasty responses were directed at the Irish, Italians and Germans and Chinese when they first came over, legally or illegally. A rational governmental response would help reduce some of this frustration. 643387[/snapback] The felon label has little to do with the illegal (or undocumented as the left likes to call them) alien, it will work against the employers who don't fear the current repercussions of hiring illegal immigrants. The people who assist the illegal immigrants could also be charged. Felonies often carry jail time and hopefully would in this case. What penalty do you suggest that is "more then a felony?" I love how easily the racist label is thrown around by the sensative, caring lefty whenever someone wants to crack down on ILLEGAL immigrants. How am I racist when I do not care what race these criminals are? Has anyone suggested that one race of people be targeted? People like you cheapen the word and diminish it's impact. You cannot lump the harrasment directed at legal immigrants with the desire to prosecute criminals. As much as you would like to portray the evil right wing as anti-immigrant, the great majority are simply anti-illegal immigrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 As much as you would like to portray the evil right wing as anti-immigrant, the great majority are simply anti-illegal immigrant. 643494[/snapback] A very valid point that will obviously get lost because one side needs to score political points over the other. One side wants to uphold the law and the other side wants to ignore the laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) A very valid point that will obviously get lost because one side needs to score political points over the other. One side wants to uphold the law and the other side wants to ignore the laws. 643514[/snapback] What "side"? This isn't a partisan issue. The GOP is completely split, Bush is calling for reform and dialing down the rhetoric, the Senate just shot down Cornyn's proposal (to criminalize helping illegal immigrants), and most people seem to want some form of the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill. I don't see one side predominantly villifying another. As for the law, most agree that the current laws don't work. EDIT: From MSNBC's First Read As the Senate prepares to get to it, a GOP leadership aide tells First Read: "There is no unified Senate position on this issue and there is no unified GOP position on this issue. The House immigration bill," which passed last year and which inspired this past weekend's protests, "and the Senate bill will not look at all alike; reconciliation between them will be the issue at hand. The McCain-Kennedy approach is farthest from the House version." Edited March 27, 2006 by Johnny Coli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 What "side"? This isn't a partisan issue. The GOP is completely split, Bush is calling for reform and dialing down the rhetoric, the Senate just shot down Cornyn's proposal (to criminalize helping illegal immigrants), and most people seem to want some form of the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill. I don't see one side predominantly villifying another. As for the law, most agree that the current laws don't work. 643532[/snapback] Isn't the main point of any issue now the breaking ranks potential of the Republican party? It's all the democrats have. "See! We're better, because they didn't agree with him either!" That's not even being partisan. If the democrats give me a candidate I can believe in to deal with what I think is important, I'll vote for him (notice, I didn't say "her"). I think, to a degree at least, that both parties realize they are in Dinosaur mode, and also realize that the public hasn't gotten it yet. They are frightened for the day they do. And no, Libertarians aren't the answer either. I just don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Electrified fence all the way across the border. 643009[/snapback] Large-spread spewing of anti-personnel mines. Much cheaper. The Europeans and the Russians are the most cost-effective suppliers. Stop the hand-wringing. Face facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) Isn't the main point of any issue now the breaking ranks potential of the Republican party? It's all the democrats have. "See! We're better, because they didn't agree with him either!" 643539[/snapback] How are you discerning that from my post pointing out that there really isn't any finger pointing going on (EDIT, wrt the issue of this thread)? I never said anything about the Dems having a "better plan than the GOP." The previous set of post's seemed to be implying there was acrimony based on partisanship. I just don't see it. Edited March 27, 2006 by Johnny Coli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 What "side"? This isn't a partisan issue. The GOP is completely split, Bush is calling for reform and dialing down the rhetoric, the Senate just shot down Cornyn's proposal (to criminalize helping illegal immigrants), and most people seem to want some form of the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill. I don't see one side predominantly villifying another. As for the law, most agree that the current laws don't work. EDIT: From MSNBC's First Read 643532[/snapback] So, sides can only be Republican vs. Democrat? It is impossible for it to be Democrat vs. Democrat or Republican vs. Republican? Thanks for letting me know. It makes the primary process useless since all candidates are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 So, sides can only be Republican vs. Democrat? It is impossible for it to be Democrat vs. Democrat or Republican vs. Republican? Thanks for letting me know. It makes the primary process useless since all candidates are the same. 643557[/snapback] The middle paragraph of Chknwng334's last post mentioned the racist label being thrown around by the lefties. If I have inferred something from your post that you did not intend, then I apologize to you, Paul, and chknwng334's alias. Mea culpa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 The middle paragraph of Chknwng334's last post mentioned the racist label being thrown around by the lefties. If I have inferred something from your post that you did not intend, then I apologize to you, Paul, and chknwng334's alias. Mea culpa. 643564[/snapback] My point was that one side says: "illegal does not really mean illegal and you are a racist if you think that illegal means illegal" and the other side says: "what part of illegal do you not understand?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 The middle paragraph of Chknwng334's last post mentioned the racist label being thrown around by the lefties. If I have inferred something from your post that you did not intend, then I apologize to you, Paul, and chknwng334's alias. Mea culpa. 643564[/snapback] Eh, I shouldn't have gone off on you. My appologies, Bug boy. Grumpy, today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Eh, I shouldn't have gone off on you. My appologies, Bug boy. Grumpy, today. 643860[/snapback] No big deal, bud. We're all smiles here on the commune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts