Illegal Immigration-How to fix it?

[Manedwolf]

"Jobs Americans Won't Do" is an insult to people whose parents or grandparents were, say, dustbowl farmers who LIVED "The Grapes of Wrath".

If there's hardworking Americans who want a job, any job, and there's a lot who do...I don't think there's "jobs they won't do".

Of course, that statement came out of the mouth of the spoiled scion of Connecticut wealth, who never worked a hard day in his life and whose daddy bailed out all his business failures.

 

[mtnbkr]

I think Jobs Americans Won't Do is an insult to Americans who will do the work, but not for $2.50/hour while living 20+ to a house.

Before illegals became common in the southeast and midatlantic area, I knew plenty Americans that would do the hard or dirty work for low, but honest wages (with and without benefits). It only became an issue when illegals started doing the work for less than minimum wage because they were willing to live like hive animals (this phenomenom exists in my own neighborhood, I know they do it this way).

Chris

 

[pcf]

There are plenty of jobs Americans won't to for $2.75 an hour, under the table. Americans won't clean toilets for $2.75 an hour, even if they don't have to pay taxes on it. Americans won't pick fruit for 10 hours a day even with a hefty paycheck of $27.50 a day.

Some Americans are total ingrates.

Next time someone says "jobs Americans won't do" ask them if they'd do their job for 66% less, and no benefits.

 

[wingman]

Next time someone says "jobs Americans won't do" ask them if they'd do their job for 66% less, and no benefits.

Rich /poor society that is our direction, when the middle-class is gone
then it will end freedom as we know it and take for granted.

 

[merk]

Tell you what, if every illegal was booted out of this country right this second, and there was a job vacuum that HAD to be filled. We take every able bodied American freeloader off of welfare(should be done anyways). Either theyll choose to not get wages and live on the streets, or theyll choose the job they supposedly dont want.

 

[critter]

Merk +1 !

Never gonna happen in this nanny state with all the have-to-be PC ultralibs.

 

[longeyes]

It used to be aristocrats versus serfs.

Now it's "tenured" versus non-tenured. If you're non-tenured, expect a bumpy life.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

While in the private sector workers such as tradesmen and other taxpayers have their wages sacraficed on the alter of deflation,

What does this mean?

 

[longeyes]

I too believe the U.S. can compete--if we smarten up and if we adjust our priorities. For fifty years the U.S. has carried the "free world" militarily and gotten nothing back but accelerating competition from nations that don't need to pay their own defense bills. We'd better address that. Then we'd better look hard at the rampant theft of our intellectual property. Making sure other nations aren't dumping or using slave labor wouldn't be a bad idea either. If it were up to me, I'd accept the reality that we've let ourselves become an addicted "consumer-driven economy" and charge foreign nations for the privilege of accessing our huge consumer market (yes, tariffs--and I'm a believer in "free trade"). We need those monies to build up our infrastructure and refocus our educational system beyond "feel good" to "think straight." American needs, in terms of trade, to put on its war face. We are not going to sustain our economy and advance our political ideals by massively importing and increasingly depending on low-skill workers and fungible "service jobs."

 

[wingman]

I too believe the U.S. can compete--if we smarten up and if we adjust our priorities. For fifty years the U.S. has carried the "free world" militarily and gotten nothing back but accelerating competition from nations that don't need to pay their own defense bills. We'd better address that. Then we'd better look hard at the rampant theft of our intellectual property. Making sure other nations aren't dumping or using slave labor wouldn't be a bad idea either. If it were up to me, I'd accept the reality that we've let ourselves become an addicted "consumer-driven economy" and charge foreign nations for the privilege of accessing our huge consumer market (yes, tariffs--and I'm a believer in "free trade"). We need those monies to build up our infrastructure and refocus our educational system beyond "feel good" to "think straight." American needs, in terms of trade, to put on its war face. We are not going to sustain our economy and advance our political ideals by massively importing and increasingly depending on low-skill workers and fungible "service jobs."

Excellent Longeyes, at some point America lost it's direction but we do need
hard change and perhaps short term it would be traumatic but long term it's
necessary.

 

[longeyes]

Yes, my view exactly. Perhaps we're in the throes of that painful change right now, as bleak as it sometimes seems. No one said it was going to be easy to keep this Republic; we just forgot about that.

What America will look like 20 years down the road is anyone's guess. But I'd like to think that the essence of the place will survive, that the spirit will prevail.

 

[JoeSF]

Vern,
It means what it says. If you work for the private sector your job can be affected by an illegal willing to work for less and is on avearge a 20% reduction . If you work in a so called tenured or professionally protected job (like by the AMA) you are immune. Maybe everyone should be asked to contribute to wage deflation if it's such a good idea? Or we could really regulate the border instead.
Joe

 

[JoeSF]

SF mayor encourages police not to enforce illegal immigration laws...
from
http://www.freshcleanday.com/converse.html

Well he's at it again. Now he and S.F.'s Board of Stupidvisors are urging San Franciscos law enforcement agencies not to comply with criminal provisions of any new federal immigration bill. Newsom said, " If people think we were defiant in the gay marriage issue, they haven't seen defiance."

 

[Waitone]

Ahh, the mayor of SF is at it again, refusing to enforce law with which he disagrees OR law that he finds inconvenient to obey.

Don't know about you but I find that attitude in government specifically to be grandly frightening. The idea government can create law then exempt itself from obedience is flat out non-American.

Now at what point will Joe and Martha Sixpack come to the conclusion they are a matched pair of museum-grade idiots for voluntarily obeying laws which the government itself refuses to obey with impunity. When Joe and Martha finally reach their personal tipping point, how will it be manifested? A what point will Joe and Martha become lawbreakers and then move to flagrant lawbreaking? Common sense says at some point common people will say "That's it!" count me in. At that point the US ceases to publicly be a country ruled by law.

 

[longeyes]

Now at what point will Joe and Martha Sixpack come to the conclusion they are a matched pair of museum-grade idiots for voluntarily obeying laws which the government itself refuses to obey with impunity. When Joe and Martha finally reach their personal tipping point, how will it be manifested? A what point will Joe and Martha become lawbreakers and then move to flagrant lawbreaking? Common sense says at some point common people will say "That's it!" count me in. At that point the US ceases to publicly be a country ruled by law.

I've been saying the same thing. America is watching the pols very carefully, just as they've been watching the judges. A process of de-legitimization is taking place, deliberate or no. At some point they are going to feel they have been played for suckers and start saying as they do elsewhere (Italy comes to mind), "The heck with them, obeying the law's for fools." That will not be a good day for this nation.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Since Pax closed a new thread started by another member and suggested that it could have been included in one the immigration threads that have been allowed to remain open, I thought I would post the comment made in the other thread. Its kinda important, since it is a quote from the US Constitution:

U.S. Constitution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARTICLE 1,SECTION 8

The Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the LAWS OF THE UNION,suppress INSURRECTIONS and to REPEL INVASIONS

Call,Fax or E-mail your REPs and ask them (NO,DEMAND THEM) to do their jobs according to the above

Personally, I think the Constitutional implications of illegal immigration are worthy of their own thread, but if not, I thought it could be discussed here instead.

Its a shame that the founders expected the Congress to actually do their part to allow enforcement of the laws of the nation, isnt it?

 

[Sindawe]

Its a shame that the founders expected the Congress to actually enforce the laws of the nation, isnt it?

Ahh...but they did not expect Congress to enforce the laws. Congress is part of the Legislative branch of our government, and is responsible for writting the laws. Implementing and enforcing those laws falls apon the Executive branch of our government, and that branch is currently headed up by our good buddy George. Congress can call up the Militia, but it is the President who is in charge of the Militia once its been called up.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Sindawe, they haven't done their job though, have they ? (despite my poorly worded comment about "enforcing".)

Imagine the fiasco that would be created if the Congress called up the militia to defend the border, and then Bush was forced to either do something, or admit that he won't.

I've edited my previous post for clarity.

 

[Desertdog]

Also in Article 1, Section 8 is this jewel
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

 

[RealGun]

Cost to Remove 12M Illegal Immigrants Huge

Cost to Remove 12M Illegal Immigrants Huge
By MARTHA MENDOZA (AP National Writer)
From Associated Press
April 07, 2006 10:59 PM EDT

As Congress debates immigration reforms, some experts say the most extreme proposal - deporting millions of illegal immigrants - would be a huge legal and logistical morass, and ruinously expensive, too.

Officials at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which would be responsible for deportations, said they have no projections on what it would take to rid the United States of an estimated 12 million people.

But the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, has put the cost at $215 billion over five years.

The study assumed that a crackdown would prompt a quarter of the nation's illegal immigrants to leave voluntarily, leaving 9 million men, women and children to deport.

balance of article

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Officials at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which would be responsible for deportations, said they have no projections on what it would take to rid the United States of an estimated 12 million people.

They have projection of cost because it is our government's policy to make deportation of illegals look like too big of a job to be possible.

$215 Billion has to be a pretty big overestimate. That means it will cost almost $18,000 per individual. I see no way it could cost that much.

Even if we accept $215 billion, though, it would be a very small price to pay, especially over 5 yrs. That is about half of the BASE defense budget for the single year 2007, which is $439.3 billion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates we have spent $320 billion dollars on the War in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[RealGun]

But the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank

Well, I wonder what the cost estimate number would be from a conservative think tank. Wouldn't the expense be breathtaking either way, regardless of bias toward making the numbers look good or bad?

I assume a big chunk of it would be staffing, detainment facilities and services, and transportation. If you build a bureaucracy around it, imagine the complexity and delay in dispositioning people. What if you take on permanent entitlements for government employees? An overriding guideline is to reduce the federal payroll, so how does all this work?

Eventually I think more people will realize and accept that any "solution" must be a practical compromise. We can all beat each other up for allowing the situation to have occurred but have a common resolve how to fix it and move on.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't see a reason to compromise, if it could be done for as little as $215 billion. I think thats an overestimate, but even so would be willing to accept higher taxes temporarily to fund it. Thats not much money on a federal level.

And I think fewer people will be willing to compromise on this issue in the future as they realize how impotent the government has been to do anything about the problem. In fact, I think if nothing happens, we will see this issue become increasingly violent. I suspect the next racial riots in Los Angeles will not be black versus white, but hispanic versus other, and the issue at hand will be illegal immigration.

National security would be better served by cutting our spending on military items for a few years if necessary to physically close the border and deport the illegals.

Heck, I would even be willing to consider just physically closing the border with a wall or fence, and not even rounding the ones already here up. Until the whole in the bottom of the boat is patched, bailing out the water won't necessarily help.

Also, $215 billion would be less than $2000 per US taxpayer, if it was paid with income tax. Over 5 yrs, that is only about an extra $400 per year. I think it would be worth that much to most people.

 

[longeyes]

Hey, no problem, just add it onto the National Debt, yet another problem about which "we can do nothing!"

When you are in a lifeboat that is already taking on water and 100 more people want on, you might want to consider survival-directed action, not count beans.

 

[longeyes]

Well, folks, good government costs money. Developing a Ministry of Reverse Migration will take Chertoff-level talent and competitive salaries and benefits. Let's not skimp on what we need.

I still think we deport Congress first and see what happens.