WORMS: The Illegal Immigrant problem
Captain Jack
Most of you who know me personally know that I'm generous with all I
have, and that I'll go out of my way to help those who need it.
I don't get all worked up about much, but this particular issue has me
burning mad-
What am I talking about? The fact that Illegal Aliens seem to be
everywhere you look these days, feeding off the generosity of our
government (and our taxes!) and giving very little if anything in return.
I have NOTHING AGAINST various races of people; I have everything
against those who enter the country illegally. If they want to live
here, fine by me; but I don't think it's asking too much to require them
to go through the process to become an American Citizen, including
learning the English Language!!!
If you or I were to move to say, a European country, I think it would be
the height of rudeness on our part to expect them to label everything in
English just so we could understand it. I most certainly would NOT
expect their citizens to work hard to give me for free what THEY had to
pay for.
All I'm asking is for immigrants to be treated JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER
CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY. That includes paying their fair share for what
they get. Is that so wrong?
That being said, I received the following in email today; and I'll
gladly pass it on. How about you?
Lastly; if the statements below are incorrect (and you can PROVE it),
I'll gladly issue an apology to the newsgroup at large.
The Cap'n
====================================================================
Not funny, but true.
JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL
You have two families: "Joe Legal " and "Jose Illegal". Both families
have two parents, two children, and live in California .
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes
$25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number,
and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal : $25..00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or
$52,000.00 per year. Now take 30%
away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or
$31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has
$31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for
his family at $600.00 per
month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00..
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and
local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has
$31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or
welfare. Joe Legal
pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now
has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps
and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month Federal rent subsidy. Jose
Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose
Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe
Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has
$31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline,
etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities,
gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after
work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal 's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.
Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children
get a Government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after
school ESL program. Joe Legal 's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services,
but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Do you get it, now? If you vote for or support any politician that
supports illegal aliens, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! It's way PAST time
to take a stand for America and Americans!
What are you waiting for? Pass it on.
The TheatrElf
news:Xns9CDFCC3CF402wh...@news.albasani.net:
> Do you get it, now? If you vote for or support any
> politician that supports illegal aliens,YOU ARE PART
> OF THE PROBLEM! It's way PAST time to take a stand for
> America and Americans!
>
I'm not aware of anyone who "supports illegal aliens." I know of
a few who point out that there are too many to remove from our
country without resorting to what boils down to genocide.
The problem isn't that they're here, the problem is that
1. we didn't keep them out in the first place and
2. we didn't simply start charging them what others pay.
So fix the borders, and get the ones already here invested in the
system so they pay their way, and stop accusing your neighbors of
being part of the problem when you're part of the problem, too.
Sheesh.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Life is sometimes like a pizza round: hot, greasy, and delivered
by a guy named 'Tony'.
Old Prof. Otter
j illegal gets 8, maybe 10 rarely 15 per hour.
But employers will hire him over the Legal guy.
If he is not payed under the table, and taxes are deducted, he will
never get them back.
And if the employer is caught (rarely) hiring the illegal, they get
fined.
Generally the illegal and the legal have access to afterschool
programss etc equally.
Now a days in California, the Illegals are going home, standing
outside and getting one job a month does not pay the food bill.
Now I do have a question for you. If there was a disease going though
the illegal population, and everyone legal or not could catch it,
should we pass out vaccine to them? In other words, are there
circumstances that our own best interests are best served by helping
these people?
What if many years from now the Mexican President has a real good idea
of the rule of law, how a country can be run, etc from an American
history class?
i think that a total ban on helping others is not bright.
'Otter
Kay Shapero
@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, seanea...@hotmail.com says...
> Actually the problem is not the one you outlined.
> j illegal gets 8, maybe 10 rarely 15 per hour.
> But employers will hire him over the Legal guy.
>
Yeppers - the main problem is the existance of status violations that
enable the employer to underpay a subsector of the job market. And
given the current aging of the population, the fact that young people
keep moving into this country legally or illegally is probably saving
our bacon - look at what's happening some places in Europe. That and the
Founders' forethought in making all kids born here citizens, thus not
generating a permanent underclass.
What we do have to do is overhaul the immigration laws so we can let in
more people without making them spend years jumping through hoops, and
at the same time guard the borders more effectively against threats that
can't get in that way. Screen people for infectious diseases, keep tabs
on them while in the country until/unless they become citizens
(basically "when you move, you check in," with suitable penalties for
non-compliance)
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
>In article <6b9d897a-5bec-4a93-9607-8d0ed396d7c0
>@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, seanea...@hotmail.com says...
>> Actually the problem is not the one you outlined.
>> j illegal gets 8, maybe 10 rarely 15 per hour.
>> But employers will hire him over the Legal guy.
>>
>
>Yeppers - the main problem is the existance of status violations that
>enable the employer to underpay a subsector of the job market. And
>given the current aging of the population, the fact that young people
>keep moving into this country legally or illegally is probably saving
>our bacon - look at what's happening some places in Europe. That and the
>Founders' forethought in making all kids born here citizens, thus not
>generating a permanent underclass.
Nit, that wasn't "the founders" unless you consider the union to have
been refounded after the Civil War. That was part of the 14th
Amendment, intended to give former slaves and their descendents
citizenship.
Specifically Amendment 14 paragraph 1
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>What we do have to do is overhaul the immigration laws so we can let in
>more people without making them spend years jumping through hoops, and
>at the same time guard the borders more effectively against threats that
>can't get in that way. Screen people for infectious diseases, keep tabs
>on them while in the country until/unless they become citizens
>(basically "when you move, you check in," with suitable penalties for
>non-compliance)
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Tim Merrigan
Clothahump
> Captain Jack <whod...@NOSPAM.US.yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9CDFCC3CF402wh...@news.albasani.net:
>
>> Do you get it, now? If you vote for or support any
>> politician that supports illegal aliens,YOU ARE PART
>> OF THE PROBLEM! It's way PAST time to take a stand for
>> America and Americans!
>>
>
> I'm not aware of anyone who "supports illegal aliens." I know of
> a few who point out that there are too many to remove from our
> country without resorting to what boils down to genocide.
No genocide involved.
Give them 30 days to leave the country voluntarily. After that, a
massive campaign of "round 'em up and run 'em out". And massive fines
to be levied against companies that have employed them.
Kay Shapero
says...
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:17:08 -0800, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <6b9d897a-5bec-4a93-9607-8d0ed396d7c0
> >@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, seanea...@hotmail.com says...
> >> Actually the problem is not the one you outlined.
> >> j illegal gets 8, maybe 10 rarely 15 per hour.
> >> But employers will hire him over the Legal guy.
> >>
> >
> >Yeppers - the main problem is the existance of status violations that
> >enable the employer to underpay a subsector of the job market. And
> >given the current aging of the population, the fact that young people
> >keep moving into this country legally or illegally is probably saving
> >our bacon - look at what's happening some places in Europe. That and the
> >Founders' forethought in making all kids born here citizens, thus not
> >generating a permanent underclass.
>
> Nit, that wasn't "the founders" unless you consider the union to have
> been refounded after the Civil War.
Whoops, you're right of course. Thanks for the correction, likewise the
amplification.
jjh
>
> Do you get it, now? If you vote for or support any politician that
> supports illegal aliens, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! It's way PAST time
> to take a stand for America and Americans!
I am glad that you did bring it up. I did wonder about something
about that.
Suppose there is Charley Businessperson. He runs a business. He has
to hire citizens, and he has to pay minimum wage, right? At least
that is what the law says. BUT!
The other Charley Businesspersons on the block are hiring illegals.
Their costs are lower. The first Charley businessperson can't
compete, and he reluctantly has to hire illegals, too, to keep his
costs down.
Am I right so far? I do really want to know if I am not just
imagining this.
So here is the point. There then is a JOB OPENING at Charley
Businessperson's place. And in walks a bona-fide Charley Citizen, a
legal resident of this country, and , um.
And Charley Businessperson can NOT hire this Charley Citizen. Right?
Cannot because Businessperson would have to pay Citizen minimum wage,
but Businessperson cannot afford that because the "market average" has
become BELOW minimum wage because of the Charley Illegals working
there?
I want to know if I am imagining this. Charley Citizen cannot get
hired unless he can pass himself off as an illegal alien.
jjh
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>In article <6b9d897a-5bec-4a93-9607-8d0ed396d7c0
Probably been said, but we need to provide a path for the currently
illegal immigrants to BECOME legal residents (and, eventually, one
hopes) US citizens.
I find you post very thoughtful, Kay, seriously.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
Wes Struebing
wrote:
Ooh. Good catch, Tim.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
David
<joshua....@gmail.com> typed:
Don't you have Government overview of wages and conditions? Here I
would simply report the underpaying companies to the Department of
Labour and Industry. If the investigation found that any company was
underpaying workers, legal or illegal, they would be forced to pay
those who have been underpaid any and all missed wages, be fined a
considerable sum in addition and, depending on the circumstances, the
directors of a company may be facing jail time. In addition the
taxation department would come into the picture and the company would
be held liable for any unpaid taxes.
Our laws never discriminate against illegals when it comes to payment
of wages. All workers are entitled to the minimum wage and also to any
benefits according to the award for that industry.
--
David
No email replies please.
WARNING: You are currently using an unregistered evaluation copy of
your life. Register now for the full-featured version and cheat code!
(Alia)
Tim Merrigan
And none of that would matter if citizenship or residency status were
not a factor in the enforcement of labor laws, as they shouldn't be.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Captain Jack
news:gegei5hop5lj738sp...@4ax.com:
And why not, if you don't mind my asking?
The Cap'n
Tim Merrigan
Because labor laws should apply equally to all workers.
0mn1vore
If the minimum wage isn't enforced for *all* employees, legal or illegal,
businesses in direct competition with each other will be pushed to hire
illegal immigrants over legal citizens, as a cost-cutting measure.
I think that's what jjh was saying in the first place.
Note that he and David weren't saying anything about keeping all or even
most illegal immigrants in the country once found-out, or even letting
them keep all their wages once paid [after all, you'd have to deduct
fines, fees, income taxes, deportation/transportation expenses,
back-taxes, compound interest on back-taxes, etc], only that businesses
*must* pay out the same minimum to each employee, and show paperwork to
that effect, thus eliminating the advantage of hiring illegal immigrants
in the first place [sorry, but I just can't take that `illegal aliens'
phrase seriously; makes me think of ET flipping burgers somewhere for
less-than-minimum-wage...]
And then there's the difference between minimum wage and what Joe Employer
was paying. Once that debt's been been paid off [from employer to
employee, regardless of citizenship], it's taxable. And then there's the
fines for paying less than minimum wage in the first place. As said,
back-taxes, mandatory Social Security deductions, compound interest on
all of the above, etc...
Comprende, amigo?
Legal immigration is another matter entirely. The kind of
legal/bureaucratic/enforcement snares people can fall into while doing
their best to immigrate legally are another other matter. My opinions of
most bureaucrats are yet one other another other matter. And so on.
Did you know that minor infractions are enforced more rigorously than
major ones? For example, if you're a gang member, making a living out of
cocaine instead of an honourable profession, you're a lot harder to catch
and deport because your paper-trail [if any] is a lot smaller.
Contrast this with a good friend of mine who was hauled before the courts
after living in the country for two years, and whose future country of
residence was in question for more than a year afterward, because the
*birthday* on his application form had been wrong. Someone else had
filled out the form for him, btw [didn't speak a word of English when he
first got here],and was perfectly willing to correct the necessary
paperwork once he did have more of a clue what all this was about.
But the enforcers have their quotas, and the easy targets are easier to
target, so they get caught. Is it good? No. Is it right? No. But
that's how it works. Meanwhile a real asshole's dinner appears on your
credit card statement, his phone calls on your cellular bill.
>
> The Cap'n
Cheers,
Patrick.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities.
-- Mark Twain
Moira
>
> What we do have to do is overhaul the immigration laws so we can let in
> more people without making them spend years jumping through hoops, and
> at the same time guard the borders more effectively against threats that
> can't get in that way. Screen people for infectious diseases, keep tabs
> on them while in the country until/unless they become citizens
> (basically "when you move, you check in," with suitable penalties for
> non-compliance)
> --
They are not asked to jump through hoops. I have known 3 people who
have become citizens. First they get here and sign up as legal
residents.and usually get a sponsor - member of the family or church
friend... In one case the woman was past the age of getting real work,
she babysat for grandkids. They are asked to take English and some
history classes. they have a "stat sheet" and when they complete it -
they take the test to become citizens. It's about a 5 year program
for most people.. and then you have a nice ceremony and your in... So
it's not that arduous.
Moira
Tim Merrigan
That's after passing the background investigation, which has been
known to take 20 years, to get the visa to be allowed into the country
in the first place. Not to mention being one of the 5000, out of
100,000 or so applicants, or whatever people in your country's annual
immigration quota.
Desideria
wrote:
(snip)
>Contrast this with a good friend of mine who was hauled before the courts
>after living in the country for two years, and whose future country of
>residence was in question for more than a year afterward, because the
>*birthday* on his application form had been wrong. Someone else had
>filled out the form for him, btw [didn't speak a word of English when he
>first got here],and was perfectly willing to correct the necessary
>paperwork once he did have more of a clue what all this was about.
>
>But the enforcers have their quotas, and the easy targets are easier to
>target, so they get caught. Is it good? No. Is it right? No. But
>that's how it works. Meanwhile a real asshole's dinner appears on your
>credit card statement, his phone calls on your cellular bill.
>
>
>>
>> The Cap'n
>
>Cheers,
>
>Patrick.
OMNI!!!!!!!!
Desideria jumps up and bounces happily over to a face she hasn't seen
in way too long.
She opens her arms wide and wraps them around Omni for a very sincere
hug, recalling that her friend never objected to a good hug.
Desideria
The TheatrElf
news:hg5c36$p91$1...@aioe.org:
Uh-huh. It will end up as genocide, because they'll struggle and
fight to stay. This is what has happened every single time in
history that a country has chosen to "drive out foreigners."
without exception.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Portions of the preceding were recorded. As for the rest of it,
I'm very much afraid it was all in your mind.
Clothahump
> Clothahump<hookk...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:hg5c36$p91$1...@aioe.org:
>
>> The TheatrElf wrote:
>>> Captain Jack<whod...@NOSPAM.US.yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:Xns9CDFCC3CF402wh...@news.albasani.net:
>>>
>>>> Do you get it, now? If you vote for or support any
>>>> politician that supports illegal aliens,YOU ARE PART
>>>> OF THE PROBLEM! It's way PAST time to take a stand for
>>>> America and Americans!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of anyone who "supports illegal aliens." I know
>>> of a few who point out that there are too many to remove from
>>> our country without resorting to what boils down to genocide.
>> -----------------
>>
>> No genocide involved.
>>
>> Give them 30 days to leave the country voluntarily. After
>> that, a massive campaign of "round 'em up and run 'em out".
>> And massive fines to be levied against companies that have
>> employed them.
>>
>
> Uh-huh. It will end up as genocide, because they'll struggle and
> fight to stay. This is what has happened every single time in
> history that a country has chosen to "drive out foreigners."
> without exception.
And if they wind up getting shot because they were stupid enough to do
that, I have no sympathy for them. They are criminals, after all.
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
And as such, each and every one of them is entitled to an actual trial
(not merely an ICE hearing, but before a judge, with legal
representation, the option of a jury, and the (real) possibility of
acquittal), and conviction before being deported.
Margo
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:49:00 -0600, Clothahump <hookkic...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >The TheatrElf wrote:
> >> Clothahump<hookkic...@yahoo.com> wrote in> >>>> Captain Jack<whoda...@NOSPAM.US.yahoo.com> wrote in
Oh, but the Patriot Act changed all that, don'tcha' know. {:>(
Clothahump
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:49:00 -0600, Clothahump<hookk...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> And if they wind up getting shot because they were stupid enough to do
>> that, I have no sympathy for them. They are criminals, after all.
>>
>
> And as such, each and every one of them is entitled to an actual trial
> (not merely an ICE hearing, but before a judge, with legal
> representation, the option of a jury, and the (real) possibility of
> acquittal), and conviction before being deported.
I stand to be corrected on this, but IIRC, failure to provide proof of
citizenship is prima facie grounds for deportation. No trial needed. I
may be misremembering that, however.
Jette Goldie
So, if you get rounded up by Immigration authorities and *cannot*
produce your "papers", you'd be happy to be deported?
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
DE wolf
Uhhh. Can you prove that all your papers are in order? I'm not
sure I could. And that's even though I was born at San Jose
General Hospital (when it still existed) in San Jose, California.
My only question is this? What country would you deport me to?
Germany, England, Iceland or one of the Indian Reservations (or
wait, can't do that I'm not on the official roles.) hmmm.
Bard Wolf (DAR with a good bit of Icelandic thrown in for
flavor)
--
**************************************
I do not fear computers. I fear the
lack of them.
- Isaac Asimov
**************************************
There is no shame in walking away from
a fight; but if they won't let you
walk away...have fun.
- S. Hersha
**************************************
You can have Freedom or Peace,
Don't EVER count on having both.
**************************************
Margo
> Clothahump wrote:
> > Tim Merrigan wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> And if they wind up getting shot because they were stupid enough to do
> >>> that, I have no sympathy for them. They are criminals, after all.
>
> >> And as such, each and every one of them is entitled to an actual trial
> >> (not merely an ICE hearing, but before a judge, with legal
> >> representation, the option of a jury, and the (real) possibility of
> >> acquittal), and conviction before being deported.
> > ------------------
> > I stand to be corrected on this, but IIRC, failure to provide proof of
> > citizenship is prima facie grounds for deportation. No trial needed. I
> > may be misremembering that, however.
>
> So, if you get rounded up by Immigration authorities and *cannot*
> produce your "papers", you'd be happy to be deported?
>
> --
> Jette Goldie
> ("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
I'm sure Clothahump (and others) think I was just taking a cheapshot
with my commen about the Patriot Act.. Unfortunately, I was pointing
out the bare truth: they don't have nearly the rights and protections
they think they have and would be in for a nasty shock if they should
ever run afoul of the "authorities". In fact, someone (can't remember
off hand who) has been pointing it out here in their sig files for
years: "The Bill of Rights; void where prohibited by law."
0mn1vore
> Clothahump wrote:
>> Tim Merrigan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:49:00 -0600, Clothahump<hookk...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> And if they wind up getting shot because they were stupid enough to do
>>>> that, I have no sympathy for them. They are criminals, after all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And as such, each and every one of them is entitled to an actual trial
>>> (not merely an ICE hearing, but before a judge, with legal
>>> representation, the option of a jury, and the (real) possibility of
>>> acquittal), and conviction before being deported.
>> ------------------
>> I stand to be corrected on this, but IIRC, failure to provide proof of
>> citizenship is prima facie grounds for deportation. No trial needed. I
>> may be misremembering that, however.
>
>
> So, if you get rounded up by Immigration authorities and *cannot*
> produce your "papers", you'd be happy to be deported?
People who look like they might be from Mexico have had trouble with that,
in the southern states [I include California as `southern' because it is
to the south]. An occasional US citizen does get deported by mistake.
Patrick.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be
correct.
-- William of Occam
SAMK
So, who is going to make the complaint to the DOL? The illegal worker
who loses his job? The point is, these people are getting paid cash.
There are no wages reported, no time kept. No reports filed. No
accountability unless someone turns them in. And illegals can't afford
to do that.
SAMK
0mn1vore
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800, 0mn1vore <See...@BitBucket.nul>
> wrote:
>
>
> (snip)
>
>>Contrast this with a good friend of mine who was hauled before the courts
>>after living in the country for two years, and whose future country of
>>residence was in question for more than a year afterward, because the
>>*birthday* on his application form had been wrong. Someone else had
>>filled out the form for him, btw [didn't speak a word of English when he
>>first got here],and was perfectly willing to correct the necessary
>>paperwork once he did have more of a clue what all this was about.
But all that appears to be sorted out now.
>>
>>But the enforcers have their quotas, and the easy targets are easier to
>>target, so they get caught. Is it good? No. Is it right? No. But
>>that's how it works. Meanwhile a real asshole's dinner appears on your
>>credit card statement, his phone calls on your cellular bill.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The Cap'n
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Patrick.
>
>
> OMNI!!!!!!!!
>
> Desideria jumps up and bounces happily over to a face she hasn't seen
> in way too long.
Hi! :-)
[But please stop bouncing like that; I'm single again, and it's just more
than I can stand right now. Thanks though. ;-) ]
>
> She opens her arms wide and wraps them around Omni for a very sincere
> hug, recalling that her friend never objected to a good hug.
Still don't. :-)
{{{{{{Desi!}}}}}}
>
>
> Desideria
Patrick.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
Ocean, n.:
A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for
man -- who has no gills.
Kay Shapero
See...@BitBucket.nul says...
> In <hge7ab$14m$1...@news.eternal-september.org> Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:19:45 +0000, Jette Goldie said:
>
> > Clothahump wrote:
> >> Tim Merrigan wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:49:00 -0600, Clothahump<hookk...@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> And if they wind up getting shot because they were stupid enough to do
> >>>> that, I have no sympathy for them. They are criminals, after all.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> And as such, each and every one of them is entitled to an actual trial
> >>> (not merely an ICE hearing, but before a judge, with legal
> >>> representation, the option of a jury, and the (real) possibility of
> >>> acquittal), and conviction before being deported.
> >> ------------------
> >> I stand to be corrected on this, but IIRC, failure to provide proof of
> >> citizenship is prima facie grounds for deportation. No trial needed. I
> >> may be misremembering that, however.
> >
> >
> > So, if you get rounded up by Immigration authorities and *cannot*
> > produce your "papers", you'd be happy to be deported?
>
> People who look like they might be from Mexico have had trouble with that,
> in the southern states [I include California as `southern' because it is
> to the south]. An occasional US citizen does get deported by mistake.
>
Especially if you happen to be under 16 and HAVE no "papers" other than
maybe a school id or a library card. There have been some celebrated
cases, even well before the "Patriot" Act, and likely even more that
didn't get reported.
Desideria
wrote:
>In <rk4ji5lq4ojqgipu0...@4ax.com> Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:10:06 -0800, Desideria said:
>
>>
>> OMNI!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Desideria jumps up and bounces happily over to a face she hasn't seen
>> in way too long.
>
>Hi! :-)
>
>[But please stop bouncing like that; I'm single again, and it's just more
>than I can stand right now. Thanks though. ;-) ]
*snerk*
Sorry, dear. But at this point, I pretty much bounce even when I'm
just walking. ;-)
>
>>
>> She opens her arms wide and wraps them around Omni for a very sincere
>> hug, recalling that her friend never objected to a good hug.
>
>Still don't. :-)
>
>{{{{{{Desi!}}}}}}
(happy smile and purr...)
>
>>
>>
>> Desideria
>
>Patrick.
Desideria
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On Dec 17, 11:07�am, Tim Merrigan <t...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:49:00 -0600, Clothahump <hookkic...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
>> And as such, each and every one of them is entitled to an actual trial
>> (not merely an ICE hearing, but before a judge, with legal
>> representation, the option of a jury, and the (real) possibility of
>> acquittal), and conviction before being deported.
>> --
>>
>> I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
>> and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
>> promising liberty and justice for all.
>> � � � Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
>>
>> Tim Merrigan
>
>Oh, but the Patriot Act changed all that, don'tcha' know. {:>(
Actually, it didn't (lots of people were wishing it had...)
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>In article <pan.2009.12.18....@giganews.com>,
And at least shortly after the Patriot Act, you could be declared a
non-citizen (and have NO recourse), even if you were born here.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Moira
> That's after passing the background investigation, which has been
> known to take 20 years, to get the visa to be allowed into the country
> in the first place. Not to mention being one of the 5000, out of
> 100,000 or so applicants, or whatever people in your country's annual
> immigration quota.
> --
>
I have not known of anyone taking 20 years but if you say it happens,
ok.. But do you have any numbers.. I know of a number of local schools
that have programs to help people become citizens.. I have known of
three who came on a quickie visa, turned it around, got a sponsor and
wham.. approx 5 years later they were citizens. Can you tell me who
you know that had to wait 20 years for a background check,,
If you have this information, I'd like to check on it .. I have
friends in the state department and I'd like an answer..
Please send the specifics.. thanks
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
>On Dec 17, 11:07�am, Tim Merrigan <t...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
No, Deportees never got due process.
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
No, if it were citizens would be required to carry ID at all times,
and we aren't.
Tim Merrigan
Nearly every adult education system in the country offers citizenship
classes, but you have to already be here, legally, to take them.
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
ICE, and INS before them have filed labor law violations against
employers in the past, after raids.
David
typed:
>In <hge7ab$14m$1...@news.eternal-september.org> Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:19:45 +0000, Jette Goldie said:
>
>> Clothahump wrote:
>>> Tim Merrigan wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:49:00 -0600, Clothahump<hookk...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> And if they wind up getting shot because they were stupid enough to do
>>>>> that, I have no sympathy for them. They are criminals, after all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And as such, each and every one of them is entitled to an actual trial
>>>> (not merely an ICE hearing, but before a judge, with legal
>>>> representation, the option of a jury, and the (real) possibility of
>>>> acquittal), and conviction before being deported.
>>> ------------------
>>> I stand to be corrected on this, but IIRC, failure to provide proof of
>>> citizenship is prima facie grounds for deportation. No trial needed. I
>>> may be misremembering that, however.
>>
>>
>> So, if you get rounded up by Immigration authorities and *cannot*
>> produce your "papers", you'd be happy to be deported?
>
>People who look like they might be from Mexico have had trouble with that,
>in the southern states [I include California as `southern' because it is
>to the south]. An occasional US citizen does get deported by mistake.
>
Australia has had a couple of similar mistakes. Lack of checking by
the Immigration Department led to the deportation of a rather sick
lady to Indonesia and another was placed in detentin for over a year.
They both won very hefty settlement payouts and rightly so in my
opinion.
--
David
No email replies please.
The human race is a race of cowards; and I am not only marching in that
procession but carrying a banner. -- Mark Twain
David
An honest merchant who can't make a profit for starters.
Hanging Jester
news:3ivdi5tbafse7d894...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:17:08 -0800, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <6b9d897a-5bec-4a93-9607-8d0ed396d7c0
>>@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, seanea...@hotmail.com says...
>>> Actually the problem is not the one you outlined.
>>> j illegal gets 8, maybe 10 rarely 15 per hour.
>>> But employers will hire him over the Legal guy.
>>>
>>
>>Yeppers - the main problem is the existance of status violations that
>>enable the employer to underpay a subsector of the job market. And
>>given the current aging of the population, the fact that young people
>>keep moving into this country legally or illegally is probably saving
>>our bacon - look at what's happening some places in Europe. That and
the
>>Founders' forethought in making all kids born here citizens, thus not
>>generating a permanent underclass.
>>
>>What we do have to do is overhaul the immigration laws so we can let
in
>>more people without making them spend years jumping through hoops, and
>>at the same time guard the borders more effectively against threats
that
>>can't get in that way. Screen people for infectious diseases, keep
tabs
>>on them while in the country until/unless they become citizens
>>(basically "when you move, you check in," with suitable penalties for
>>non-compliance)
>
> Probably been said, but we need to provide a path for the currently
> illegal immigrants to BECOME legal residents (and, eventually, one
> hopes) US citizens.
Uh, no we don't have to provide such a path. The path already exists.
All they have to do is go back to their contry of origin. Then file to
go through the process legally. They wait their turn like all the other
legal immigrants, and eventually they may become citizens. The United
States has the most liberal and open immigration process in the world.
Let them try to immigrate illegally in any other country in the world
and see what they get.
~ Jester
Hanging Jester
news:7cvli5t0so1vt0d3u...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:04:46 -0800 (PST), Moira
> <moi...@abraxasgroup.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> That's after passing the background investigation, which has been
>>> known to take 20 years, to get the visa to be allowed into the
country
>>> in the first place. �Not to mention being one of the 5000, out of
>>> 100,000 or so applicants, or whatever people in your country's
annual
>>> immigration quota.
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>I have not known of anyone taking 20 years but if you say it happens,
>>ok.. But do you have any numbers.. I know of a number of local schools
>>that have programs to help people become citizens.. I have known of
>>three who came on a quickie visa, turned it around, got a sponsor and
>>wham.. approx 5 years later they were citizens. Can you tell me who
>>you know that had to wait 20 years for a background check,,
>>If you have this information, I'd like to check on it .. I have
>>friends in the state department and I'd like an answer..
>>
>>Please send the specifics.. thanks
>
> Nearly every adult education system in the country offers citizenship
> classes, but you have to already be here, legally, to take them.
So then they go back and enter the country legally. Look, I've worked
with many people who have come from other contries, who have properly
gone through the process. Many of them had to wait for years until their
wives or other family members could also immigrate. Some of them also
resent those who enter illegally and I think that they are fully
justified in their resentment. We could allow more people to immigrate
legally if we didn't also have to deal with the illegals. (Illegal
immigration is one of the reasons that that the allowable number of
legal immigrants are kept as low as they are.
~ Jester
Hanging Jester
news:hqoli59n028lbtokm...@4ax.com:
Don't listen to Patrick, you go ahead and bounce all you want Des.
~ Jester
Old Prof. Otter
> Captain Jack wrote:
>
> > Do you get it, now? If you vote for or support any politician that
> > to take a stand for America and Americans!
>
> about that.
>
> Suppose there is Charley Businessperson. He runs a business. He has
> to hire citizens, and he has to pay minimum wage, right? At least
> that is what the law says. BUT!
>
> The other Charley Businesspersons on the block are hiring illegals.
> Their costs are lower. The first Charley businessperson can't
> compete, and he reluctantly has to hire illegals, too, to keep his
> costs down.
>
> Am I right so far? I do really want to know if I am not just
> imagining this.
>
> So here is the point. There then is a JOB OPENING at Charley
> Businessperson's place. And in walks a bona-fide Charley Citizen, a
> legal resident of this country, and , um.
>
> And Charley Businessperson can NOT hire this Charley Citizen. Right?
> Cannot because Businessperson would have to pay Citizen minimum wage,
> but Businessperson cannot afford that because the "market average" has
> become BELOW minimum wage because of the Charley Illegals working
> there?
>
> I want to know if I am imagining this. Charley Citizen cannot get
> hired unless he can pass himself off as an illegal alien.
>
> jjh
It is there.
But with a new twist.
The 'illegal' may not even be in this country.
Anything that can be done via the net will be done internationally by
the lowest bidder.
And someone in India, IIRC, is taking down minutes of a USA town hall
for a newspaper.
'Otter
Barry Gold
>>> news:Xns9CDFCC3CF402wh...@news.albasani.net:
>>>
>>>> OF THE PROBLEM! It's way PAST time to take a stand for
>>>> America and Americans!
>>>>
>>>
>>> of a few who point out that there are too many to remove from
>>> our country without resorting to what boils down to genocide.
>> -----------------
>>
>> No genocide involved.
>>
>> Give them 30 days to leave the country voluntarily. After
>> that, a massive campaign of "round 'em up and run 'em out".
>> And massive fines to be levied against companies that have
>> employed them.
>>
The TheatrElf <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Uh-huh. It will end up as genocide, because they'll struggle and
>fight to stay. This is what has happened every single time in
>history that a country has chosen to "drive out foreigners."
>without exception.
Not necessarily. Once it becomes clear that you are serious, people
will leave *if they can*. One problem in WWII Germany was that so
few countries would take the Jews. Nobody wanted to believe that
things were actually that bad.
When Israel declared and won independence, some Palestinian Arabs left
in hopes of coming back with a victorious army and wiping Israel off
the maps. But it has become clear that others were driven out by the
Irgun and Haganah. And they left. (Of course, they eventually came
back to Gaza and the West Bank, but that was a couple of generations
later.)
People stay in the face of a determined "you're not welcome here"
campaign when they think they have nowhere else to go. Otherwide,
they go somewhere they _will_ be welcome.
A large part of the reason the US has such a problem with immigration
is that Mexico is a mess. THe government is corrupt, favors one
ethnic group over another, the economy is OK in some areas but in
others it's on life-support, etc. So if people do return to Mexico,
they will starve to death. Provides a pretty strong incentive to stay
here.
But there's also a significant problem with the assumptions in the top
post in this thread: namely that illegals are living off the
government. Most are working. Most probably make at least minimum
wage (at least, when they work). They pay taxes. ANd if they can't
get legal status, they won't be able to collect Social Security.
That's a nice bonus for those of us who _do_ qualify.
Yeah, I'm sure you have some employers who pay people under the table,
without deducting or paying taxes. But let's face it: the penalties for
tax evasion are a lot worse than for violating immigration law.
Mostly, if you hire an illegal immigrant you will pay a fine. DOn't
pay the taxes, and the IRS will come after you for tax evasion.
Also keep in mind that we already _have_ fairly strong laws against
hiring illegal immigrants. Starting some time in the 1980s, any time
you started a new job they had to fill in an I-9 form. That's a "1
from column A and 1 from column B" thing, where you provide something
that proves you are entitled to work in the US, plus something that
proves you are who you say you are. (A US Passport fulfills both
functions.)
But immigrants get forged papers. It's not that hard to get a birth
certificate for a random person, and once you have that you can get a
forged Drivers License to go with it. So what are you going to do?
Penalize people who hire an illegal in good faith because their papers
looked good. (Yeah, I'm sure many employers are not checking those
documents real carefully, but how do you tell the innocent mistakes
from the deliberate ones?) Require _every_ employer to check
documents against a national database? What about "casual labor",
where you hire somebody to trim the trees in your yard? Or to clean
up the debris after a mudslide?
We could deal with the problem of paying Jose Illegal under the table
by upping the penalty for tax evasion, I suppose.(*)
Your papers, please.
Then there's the idea of patrolling the border. We can build fences,
we can put more border patrols out. "The Wall" didn't keep people in,
do we really think one will keep people out? Oh, you can slow it
down, and maybe that will be enough. But how much in taxes are you
willing to pay for a bunch of people to drive around the desert
looking for illegal immigrants? I suspect a lot of people from back
east don't realize just _how much_ open land we have out here. Most
of the southern border of the US is either desert or grassland with
the only fences being those designed to keep livestock from wandering
too far. Not much of a challenge to a human being.
(*) But watch out. One of the signs of a tyranny is when the
penalties get out of line with the crime. (And of course there's that
pesky Eight Amendment, "excessive fines shall not be imposed") It's
one of the things I worry about these days. The fine for a single
driver using a carpool lane, or somebody without the required placard
parking in a "disabled" space, is higher than for running red light or
other real safety-related violations. Something is not rotten in the
State of California (or COlorado, or New Hampshire, or...)
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
Tim Merrigan
and in 30 or 40 years, once they've worked their way back to the front
of the queue, and passed their background check (having entered the
country illegally being a black mark), they might be allowed in, from
whence they can start the five to ten year process of becoming
citizens.
Barry Gold
So everybody should get and carry around a US passport? God help you
if your pocket is picked, or you put on the wrong pair of pants in the
morning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f37quWemJs
"Born in East LA"
The TheatrElf
news:hgdgc7$ck1$1...@aioe.org:
> The TheatrElf wrote:
>> Clothahump<hookk...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:hg5c36$p91$1...@aioe.org:
>>
>>> The TheatrElf wrote:
>>>> Captain Jack<whod...@NOSPAM.US.yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9CDFCC3CF402wh...@news.albasani.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you get it, now? If you vote for or support any
>>>>> politician that supports illegal aliens,YOU ARE PART
>>>>> OF THE PROBLEM! It's way PAST time to take a stand for
>>>>> America and Americans!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of anyone who "supports illegal aliens." I
>>>> know of a few who point out that there are too many to
>>>> remove from our country without resorting to what boils
>>>> down to genocide.
>>> -----------------
>>>
>>> No genocide involved.
>>>
>>> Give them 30 days to leave the country voluntarily. After
>>> that, a massive campaign of "round 'em up and run 'em out".
>>> And massive fines to be levied against companies that have
>>> employed them.
>>>
>>
>> Uh-huh. It will end up as genocide, because they'll struggle
>> and fight to stay. This is what has happened every single
>> time in history that a country has chosen to "drive out
>> foreigners." without exception.
> ==================
> And if they wind up getting shot because they were stupid
> enough to do that, I have no sympathy for them. They are
> criminals, after all.
>
>
See? Genocide, and you're cheering it on.
Ever consider that that's who you really are?
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
"Strike the show, my ass. I'm outta here when the curtain
drops."
Clive Mitchell
The TheatrElf
news:12611449...@irys.nyx.net:
Are you saying that the Holocaust wasn't an act of genocide?
>
> When Israel declared and won independence, some Palestinian
> Arabs left in hopes of coming back with a victorious army and
> wiping Israel off the maps. But it has become clear that
> others were driven out by the Irgun and Haganah. And they
> left. (Of course, they eventually came back to Gaza and the
> West Bank, but that was a couple of generations later.)
But there has always been a Palistinian presence there, and it's
on the verge of collapsing into genocide. Minor nitpick: the
Palestinians are natives of that area, not foreign refugees. This
is a reverse case: non-native Jews displacing the native
population.
>
> People stay in the face of a determined "you're not welcome
> here" campaign when they think they have nowhere else to go.
> Otherwide, they go somewhere they _will_ be welcome.
If such a place exists.
>
> A large part of the reason the US has such a problem with
> immigration is that Mexico is a mess. THe government is
> corrupt, favors one ethnic group over another, the economy is
> OK in some areas but in others it's on life-support, etc. So
> if people do return to Mexico, they will starve to death.
> Provides a pretty strong incentive to stay here.
Pretty much my point. If one desires that Mexicans stay in
Mexico, fix Mexico.
>
> But there's also a significant problem with the assumptions in
> the top post in this thread: namely that illegals are living
> off the government. Most are working. Most probably make at
> least minimum wage (at least, when they work). They pay
> taxes. ANd if they can't get legal status, they won't be able
> to collect Social Security. That's a nice bonus for those of
> us who _do_ qualify.
While that is absolutely true, it's also true that there are
laborers working off the books; they are paid much less than
minimum wage, and they are not paying taxes. But their draw on
services is actually statistically insignificant. They are not a
major drain on a national scale. Locally? Sure. There are
place where it's felt. But on a national scale, it's a drop in
an ocean.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure you have some employers who pay people under
> the table, without deducting or paying taxes. But let's face
> it: the penalties for tax evasion are a lot worse than for
> violating immigration law. Mostly, if you hire an illegal
> immigrant you will pay a fine. DOn't pay the taxes, and the
> IRS will come after you for tax evasion.
More people get away with tax evasion than get caught. Sad, but
true.
Mostly, you and I agree that simply marching them out at gunpoint
isn't much of a solution. The problem isn't that they are here,
the problem is that they are here illegally; it should be a
quibble, not a gunfight.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Yield to oncoming traffic.
The TheatrElf
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:41:01 -0800 (PST), Moira
> <moi...@abraxasgroup.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> What we do have to do is overhaul the immigration laws so we
>>> can let in more people without making them spend years
>>> jumping through hoops, and at the same time guard the
>>> borders more effectively against threats that can't get in
>>> that way. �Screen people for infectious diseases, keep tabs
>>> on them while in the country until/unless they become
>>> citizens (basically "when you move, you check in," with
>>> suitable penalties for non-compliance)
>>> --
>>
>>They are not asked to jump through hoops. I have known 3
>>people who have become citizens. First they get here and sign
>>up as legal residents.and usually get a sponsor - member of
>>the family or church friend... In one case the woman was past
>>the age of getting real work, she babysat for grandkids. They
>>are asked to take English and some history classes. they have
>>a "stat sheet" and when they complete it - they take the test
>>to become citizens. It's about a 5 year program for most
>>people.. and then you have a nice ceremony and your in... So
>>it's not that arduous.
>>
>>Moira
>
> That's after passing the background investigation, which has
> been known to take 20 years, to get the visa to be allowed
> into the country in the first place. Not to mention being one
> of the 5000, out of 100,000 or so applicants, or whatever
> people in your country's annual immigration quota.
Most of these problems are created in the country of origin, not
on the US end of the system. Sometimes, it's a matter of not
having access to the information of how to apply, and that is
often because US Embassies fall short on outreach.
Of course, if you're Cuban, you just have to get here.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
For some reason the concept of sacrificing accuracy to increase
efficiency seems inherently wrong.
The TheatrElf
news:15d5cc59-c89c-4301...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups
.com:
I actually know someone who had this problem; UK citizen who
married a US citizen who turned out to be a wife beater. She
left him, but then spent years fighting deportation of herself
and her children. She did finally manage to get everything in
order.
What pissed her off is that at the same time, she lived in a
community full of Cuban and Haitain refugees who got green cards
with relative ease. She had a job, paid taxes, and generally
benefitted society, yet someone who showed up on a raft was
processed without hesitation, while she had to prove that she
hadn't gotten married just to get over here.
Just because you know a couple of people who had no problems, you
should not conclude that the system works efficiently or even
consistently.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was
probably
worth it.
The TheatrElf
news:hgej3o$b3a$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>> Our laws never discriminate against illegals when it comes to
>> payment of wages. All workers are entitled to the minimum
>> wage and also to any benefits according to the award for that
>> industry.
>
> So, who is going to make the complaint to the DOL? The
> illegal worker who loses his job? The point is, these people
> are getting paid cash. There are no wages reported, no time
> kept. No reports filed. No accountability unless someone
> turns them in.
And the number of people involved in this is miniscule.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Nietzsche thought he was the Antichrist or Dionysus, but that
was after the syphilis crossed the blood-brain barrier.
Morgan
wrote:
> bg...@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote in
> news:12611449...@irys.nyx.net:
>
>>> Clothahump <hookk...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:hg5c36$p91$1...@aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> The TheatrElf wrote:
>>>>> Captain Jack <whod...@NOSPAM.US.yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:Xns9CDFCC3CF402wh...@news.albasani.net:
<massive snippage>
>> A large part of the reason the US has such a problem with
>> immigration is that Mexico is a mess. THe government is
>> corrupt, favors one ethnic group over another, the economy is
>> OK in some areas but in others it's on life-support, etc. So
>> if people do return to Mexico, they will starve to death.
>> Provides a pretty strong incentive to stay here.
>
> Pretty much my point. If one desires that Mexicans stay in
> Mexico, fix Mexico.
Just out of curiosity, who are you suggesting "fix Mexico"? It's not the
USofA's place to go fixing other countries, though we do help when
invited. I'm sure a great many Mexicans are working on fixing their own
nation, but I doubt that keeping people from jumping ship northward is
high on their list of reasons.
Morgan /|\
Old Prof. Otter
> > Mexico, fix Mexico.
>
> Just out of curiosity, who are you suggesting "fix Mexico"? It's not the
> USofA's place to go fixing other countries, though we do help when
> invited. I'm sure a great many Mexicans are working on fixing their own
> nation, but I doubt that keeping people from jumping ship northward is
> high on their list of reasons.
>
> Morgan /|\
On one hand helping in any way a neighbor country is more than just
neighborly.
When we wiped out small pox, we did it for the world, but it also
means no such problem here.
Finding a fix that is ok with a foreign country is a problem, but one
that could be solved.
Getting rid of drug demand in the US would help Mexico, and maybe have
some benefits here.
On the other hand the problem is at least in all the Americas,
Honduras sends people to the US via Mexico.
And we may not be able to afford a Monro Doctrine of fixing all the
Americas that want our help.
And the problem does not stop there.
As I wrote to a Newspaper reporter, the major skill that reporters and
engineers in the US lack is the ability to live on $5K per year.
Sean
Beth J.
Mind if I hug you, too?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Canvas Canary"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(I paint, sing, am blonde & a bit flighty:)
------------------------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/canvascanary
------------------------------------
"Creative minds are seldom tidy." --Unknown
------------------------------------
Desideria
<hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>Desideria <deside...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:hqoli59n028lbtokm...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>Don't listen to Patrick, you go ahead and bounce all you want Des.
>
>~ Jester
<G>
Says a man who's SEEN me. ;-)
Thanks, Jester!
Desideria
Wes Struebing
<hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
Please...? ;-)
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Kay Shapero
str...@comcast.net says...
> >>
> >> People who look like they might be from Mexico have had trouble with that,
> >> in the southern states [I include California as `southern' because it is
> >> to the south]. An occasional US citizen does get deported by mistake.
> >>
> >
> >Especially if you happen to be under 16 and HAVE no "papers" other than
> >maybe a school id or a library card. There have been some celebrated
> >cases, even well before the "Patriot" Act, and likely even more that
> >didn't get reported.
>
> And at least shortly after the Patriot Act, you could be declared a
> non-citizen (and have NO recourse), even if you were born here.
>
Ah yes, honoring the Constitution too much to actually READ it...
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
David
<seanea...@hotmail.com> typed:
>When we wiped out small pox, we did it for the world, but it also
>means no such problem here.
Are you trying to imply that the USA was solely responsible for the
eradication of smallpox? I was under the impression that it was a
world-wide effort by many countries including the USA and the USSR.
Eventually the WHO took control and it was through their leadership
that eradication finally occurred.
--
David
No email replies please.
Expect a letter from a friend who will ask a favor of you.
Kay Shapero
faro...@picknowl.com.au says...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:24:20 -0800 (PST), "Old Prof. Otter"
> <seanea...@hotmail.com> typed:
>
> >When we wiped out small pox, we did it for the world, but it also
> >means no such problem here.
>
> Are you trying to imply that the USA was solely responsible for the
> eradication of smallpox? I was under the impression that it was a
> world-wide effort by many countries including the USA and the USSR.
> Eventually the WHO took control and it was through their leadership
> that eradication finally occurred.
>
a short history of same. If only we humans would spend more of our
global efforts on this sort of thing and less of it at flinging
explosives at each other... :(
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/SmallpoxEradication/
0mn1vore
> Hi again, 0mn1! :)
> Mind if I hug you, too?
I wouldn't mind at all. :-)
And {{{{{{Beth}}}}}} if you like.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The Canvas Canary"
Patrick.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
One possible reason that things aren't going according to plan
is that there never was a plan in the first place.
0mn1vore
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:24:20 -0800 (PST), "Old Prof. Otter"
> <seanea...@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>>When we wiped out small pox, we did it for the world, but it also
>>means no such problem here.
>
> Are you trying to imply that the USA was solely responsible for the
> eradication of smallpox? I was under the impression that it was a
> world-wide effort by many countries including the USA and the USSR.
> Eventually the WHO took control and it was through their leadership
> that eradication finally occurred.
All right. Then I'll pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday.
Then I'll get on my knees and pray we don't get fooled again.
Cheers,
Patrick [doesn't really know how to play guitar].
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
YOW!! Up ahead! It's a DONUT HUT!!
The TheatrElf
news:op.u45fojkn6isimy@phoenix:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:14:52 -0800, The TheatrElf
> <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> bg...@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote in
>> news:12611449...@irys.nyx.net:
>>
>>>> Clothahump <hookk...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:hg5c36$p91$1...@aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> The TheatrElf wrote:
>>>>>> Captain Jack <whod...@NOSPAM.US.yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:Xns9CDFCC3CF402wh...@news.albasani.net
>>>>>> :
> <massive snippage>
>
>>> A large part of the reason the US has such a problem with
>>> immigration is that Mexico is a mess. THe government is
>>> corrupt, favors one ethnic group over another, the economy
>>> is OK in some areas but in others it's on life-support, etc.
>>> So if people do return to Mexico, they will starve to
>>> death. Provides a pretty strong incentive to stay here.
>>
>> Pretty much my point. If one desires that Mexicans stay in
>> Mexico, fix Mexico.
>
> Just out of curiosity, who are you suggesting "fix Mexico"?
> It's not the USofA's place to go fixing other countries,
> though we do help when invited.
Do we really? I think the USA often does whatever the hell it
wants, and not necessarily in an effective method.
I'm not proposing invasions, but I am saying that we can and
should do more to assist Mexico in becoming a place that a fairly
large number of people aren't fleeing from.
> I'm sure a great many Mexicans are working on fixing their
> own nation, but I doubt that keeping people from jumping
> ship northward is high on their list of reasons.
>
It ought to be. Losing your labor force is a problem. Pissing off
your rich neighbor who could fund a lot of renewal projects is
another.
My point is that complaining about refugees doesn't solve the
problem - they'll just flee again. Making their homeland a place
they want to stay does solve the problem.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Drive defensively; buy a tank.
David
typed:
Hear, hear.
--
David
No email replies please.
Be cheerful while you are alive. -- Phathotep, 24th Century B.C.
Old Prof. Otter
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:24:20 -0800 (PST), "Old Prof. Otter"
>
> >When we wiped out small pox, we did it for the world, but it also
> >means no such problem here.
>
> Are you trying to imply that the USA was solely responsible for the
> eradication of smallpox? I was under the impression that it was a
> world-wide effort by many countries including the USA and the USSR.
> Eventually the WHO took control and it was through their leadership
> that eradication finally occurred.
> --
> David
> No email replies please.
> Expect a letter from a friend who will ask a favor of you.
I thought that the USA was a major contributer, but if I am wrong I do
not have enough info to know.
In anycase the concept of helping others in an enlightened self
interest way means the good consequences to self were intended,
or at least were somewohat expected or at least hoped for, depending
on how analyzed the situation could be.
Which was why my unanswered question was 'is there any case where
helping others is a good thing for yourself'.
I believe that the answer should be and is 'yes'.
But we have to measure the cost we can spare, and check historic cost
benefit ratios.
But if we could eradicate TB, the benefit would be huge.
Sean
David
<seanea...@hotmail.com> typed:
>On Dec 18, 9:48�pm, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:24:20 -0800 (PST), "Old Prof. Otter"
>> <seanearly...@hotmail.com> typed:
>>
>> >When we wiped out small pox, we did it for the world, but it also
>> >means no such problem here.
>>
>> Are you trying to imply that the USA was solely responsible for the
>> eradication of smallpox? I was under the impression that it was a
>> world-wide effort by many countries including the USA and the USSR.
>> Eventually the WHO took control and it was through their leadership
>> that eradication finally occurred.
>
>I thought that the USA was a major contributer, but if I am wrong I do
>not have enough info to know.
USA was one of two major contributors, the other was USSR. The rest of
the world cooperated and supplied resources. Read the Wikipedia
article for an all over picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
>In anycase the concept of helping others in an enlightened self
>interest way means the good consequences to self were intended,
>or at least were somewohat expected or at least hoped for, depending
>on how analyzed the situation could be.
>
>Which was why my unanswered question was 'is there any case where
>helping others is a good thing for yourself'.
>I believe that the answer should be and is 'yes'.
>But we have to measure the cost we can spare, and check historic cost
>benefit ratios.
>But if we could eradicate TB, the benefit would be huge.
>
I agree, wholeheartedly, with those sentiments. My argument was only
with you giving impression that USA was solely responsible.
--
David
No email replies please.
For courage mounteth with occasion. -- William Shakespeare, "King John"
Chris Zakes
Okay, so I'll reiterate the question: HOW? Please be more specific
than just saying "assist Mexico in becoming a place that a fairly
large number of people aren't fleeing from."
-Chris Zakes
Texas
I hallucinate gently for a living.
-Terry Pratchett
Beth J.
(((((Patrick))))). :)
John Cleary
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:13:05 +0000 (UTC), an orbital mind-control
> laser caused The TheatrElf <xj...@netscape.net> to write:
>
>
>
> >news:op.u45fojkn6isimy@phoenix:
>
> >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:14:52 -0800, The TheatrElf
> >> <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>> bg...@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote in
> >>>news:12611449...@irys.nyx.net:
>
Well as I said,
End prohibition here, that would hurt the drug lords somewhat,
then ask Mexico how and if we could help.
Already I would think that the jobs exported down there would have
helped.
On a sidetrack, one solution I can see as a coming possibility is
tariffs and protectionism.
It would cut our trade to the world as the world does tit for tat, but
it would save jobs.
I used to be strongly against this, but if we really can not compete
in the world markets,
it may be the only way.
'Otter sigh
Clothahump
> Clothahump wrote:
>> Tim Merrigan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:49:00 -0600, Clothahump<hookk...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> that, I have no sympathy for them. They are criminals, after all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> (not merely an ICE hearing, but before a judge, with legal
>>> representation, the option of a jury, and the (real) possibility of
>>> acquittal), and conviction before being deported.
>> ------------------
>> I stand to be corrected on this, but IIRC, failure to provide proof of
>> citizenship is prima facie grounds for deportation. No trial needed. I
>> may be misremembering that, however.
>
>
> produce your "papers", you'd be happy to be deported?
> ====================
Sigh. You do not have to produce them "on the spot". You're given a
reasonable time to do so. Since I can produce proof of citizenship
within 24 hours or less, it's not an issue for me.
And if someone is not here legally and gets rounded up, I don't give a
flip whether they are happy or not.
Clothahump
Ever consider that a fool is what you really are? I'm not advocating
genocide. But if an illegal is stupid enough to shoot at the cops
coming after him, he's gonna get shot in return. That's what I was
referring to. But of course, that went flying right over your head.
The TheatrElf
news:4o5ri55memcl0dbhl...@4ax.com:
>>Do we really? I think the USA often does whatever the hell it
>>wants, and not necessarily in an effective method.
>>
>>I'm not proposing invasions, but I am saying that we can and
>>should do more to assist Mexico in becoming a place that a
>>fairly large number of people aren't fleeing from.
>
> Okay, so I'll reiterate the question: HOW? Please be more
> specific than just saying "assist Mexico in becoming a place
> that a fairly large number of people aren't fleeing from."
If I knew how to solve this problem, I wouldn't be wasting my
brilliance on dazzling you, now would I?
Back to reality, it's the usual diplomatic process; push the
Mexican government harder to make reforms that benefit its
citizens, and be very quick to generously award movement in the
right direction.
The fact remains that as long as Mexico is a place that people
will leave to find work here, they'll do that. THAT is the
problem to be solved. Guns and murder will not solve it. It
will make murderers of us, but it will not solve the problem.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Chris Zakes
laser caused The TheatrElf <xj...@netscape.net> to write:
>Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:4o5ri55memcl0dbhl...@4ax.com:
>
>>>Do we really? I think the USA often does whatever the hell it
>>>wants, and not necessarily in an effective method.
>>>
>>>I'm not proposing invasions, but I am saying that we can and
>>>should do more to assist Mexico in becoming a place that a
>>>fairly large number of people aren't fleeing from.
>>
>> Okay, so I'll reiterate the question: HOW? Please be more
>> specific than just saying "assist Mexico in becoming a place
>> that a fairly large number of people aren't fleeing from."
>
>If I knew how to solve this problem, I wouldn't be wasting my
>brilliance on dazzling you, now would I?
Or in other words, you haven't a clue beyond waving some magic wand.
>Back to reality, it's the usual diplomatic process; push the
>Mexican government harder to make reforms that benefit its
>citizens, and be very quick to generously award movement in the
>right direction.
Uh-huh, we're already sending billions to Mexico in foreign aid.
http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eng/aid.html says 30+ billion every
year. I'm not sure that just throwing more money at the problem will
fix it.
>The fact remains that as long as Mexico is a place that people
>will leave to find work here, they'll do that. THAT is the
>problem to be solved. Guns and murder will not solve it. It
>will make murderers of us, but it will not solve the problem.
I read somewhere a while back that Brazil was actually becoming a more
popular destination for illegal immigrants, because there were more
job opportunities there, especially with the current state of the US
economy.
Of course that doesn't do much about the millions of illegals who are
already here...
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls
and persuade themselves that they have a better idea.
- John Ciardi
Bean Counter
Putting it another way, the US is at the moment more attractive to
Mexicans than Mexico or other places. That suggests that a possible
solution might be two-pronged: help Mexico to develop more opportunity at
home, and deal more firmly with illegal migrants in the US.
--
When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
- Scott Adams, "Dilbert" Sept 22,'09
DE wolf
That's nice. As I said, I was born and raised in the US.
California to be exact, and I am not convinced that I could
produce proof of this fact "withing 24 hours or less".
> And if someone is not here legally and gets rounded up, I don't give a
> flip whether they are happy or not.
So send them all back right. Never mind that in a number of
cases they are dead as soon as they cross the border into their
country of origin. Remember, not all of our refugees are
economic, some of them are political. And the government doesn't
acknowledge all of them.
DE Wolf, one size fits all rules...don't
--
**************************************
I do not fear computers. I fear the
lack of them.
- Isaac Asimov
**************************************
There is no shame in walking away from
a fight; but if they won't let you
walk away...have fun.
- S. Hersha
**************************************
You can have Freedom or Peace,
Don't EVER count on having both.
**************************************
The TheatrElf
news:hglh85$tlp$2...@aioe.org:
>> Ever consider that that's who you really are?
> =====================
> Ever consider that a fool is what you really are?
You should hear your own drivel, sometime.
> I'm not
> advocating genocide. But if an illegal is stupid enough to
> shoot at the cops coming after him, he's gonna get shot in
> return.
Who said anything about illegals shooting at anyone at anytime?
No one. This is yet another strawman. You used to be an
honorable guy; what happened to you?
>That's what I was referring to. But of course, that
> went flying right over your head.
Well, since you're making up things to argue about, it's no
surprise.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Common sense is what tells you that the world is flat.
The TheatrElf
>>> Okay, so I'll reiterate the question: HOW? Please be more
>>> specific than just saying "assist Mexico in becoming a place
>>> that a fairly large number of people aren't fleeing from."
>>
>>If I knew how to solve this problem, I wouldn't be wasting my
>>brilliance on dazzling you, now would I?
>
> Or in other words, you haven't a clue beyond waving some magic
> wand.
>
Knowing what the solution *isn't* doesn't require that one also
know what the solution *is.*
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
If Jesus was Jewish, then why did he have a Puerto-Rican name?
Marten Kemp
Have I mentioned recently the Law of Demand and Supply: for any
demand there will arise a supply. Corollary: prohibitions have
never never worked.
As long as there's a demand for cheap labor there'll be illegal
immigration.
--
-- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)
You can't help being ignorant 'cause there's always
something you don't know; what you can't be is stupid.
Tim Merrigan
That's only half the equation. The full statement would be, "As long
as there's a demand for cheap labor and there are restrictions on
immigration, there'll be illegal immigration."
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Tim Merrigan
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>In article <brpli5t6vns38at6a...@4ax.com>,
>str...@comcast.net says...
>
>> >>
>> >> People who look like they might be from Mexico have had trouble with that,
>> >> in the southern states [I include California as `southern' because it is
>> >> to the south]. An occasional US citizen does get deported by mistake.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Especially if you happen to be under 16 and HAVE no "papers" other than
>> >maybe a school id or a library card. There have been some celebrated
>> >cases, even well before the "Patriot" Act, and likely even more that
>> >didn't get reported.
>>
>> And at least shortly after the Patriot Act, you could be declared a
>> non-citizen (and have NO recourse), even if you were born here.
>>
>
>Ah yes, honoring the Constitution too much to actually READ it...
Yup. That's our former prez...
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>In article <u4qoi5h0j2l8v10mk...@4ax.com>,
And if only we could convince those in other countries to quit
listening to other vaccination scare tactics, we could have had polio
wiped out by now, imho.
http://tinyurl.com/ykg2jf9 (why it isn't yet wiped out)
Wes Struebing
Not to mention when you're in a roundup (or in an interrogation room
at a border crossing) it is sometimes problematic to prove one's
citizenship, since you most likely will not be let go to prove your
claim.
John Cleary
home.
They can not make it on a few days per month, no one can.
Sean
Marten Kemp
Okay, I'll accept that.
0mn1vore
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:53:38 +0000 (UTC), an orbital mind-control
> laser caused The TheatrElf <xj...@netscape.net> to write:
>
[...]
>
>>Back to reality, it's the usual diplomatic process; push the
>>Mexican government harder to make reforms that benefit its
>>citizens, and be very quick to generously award movement in the
>>right direction.
>
> Uh-huh, we're already sending billions to Mexico in foreign aid.
> http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eng/aid.html says 30+ billion every
> year. I'm not sure that just throwing more money at the problem will
> fix it.
I'm not sure about throwing *more* money at the problem -- it could be
less if they work on their aim [now where did I park that trebuchet...].
>
>
>>The fact remains that as long as Mexico is a place that people
>>will leave to find work here, they'll do that. THAT is the
>>problem to be solved. Guns and murder will not solve it. It
>>will make murderers of us, but it will not solve the problem.
>
> I read somewhere a while back that Brazil was actually becoming a more
> popular destination for illegal immigrants, because there were more
> job opportunities there, especially with the current state of the US
> economy.
>
> Of course that doesn't do much about the millions of illegals who are
> already here...
Brazilian travel brochures and a list of `optional' deportation
destinations?
Yes that was flippant, but if someone had enough trouble at their point of
origin to break in here [`here' being Canada or the US, in this case], why
send them back to exactly the same place, if there's somewhere else they'd
rather be?
Within reason of course, although in some cases it would make for a
*cheaper* plane ticket -- and only if it looks like the country in
question is willing to take them.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
Patrick.
>
> Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls
> and persuade themselves that they have a better idea.
>
> - John Ciardi
Sad but true.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
BOFH excuse #136:
Daemons loose in system.
Chris Zakes
So we should just toss our immigration laws, and let anyone who wants
to--and as many of them as want to--move into this country?
I expect that solution would cause even more problems than we
currently have.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
0mn1vore
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:08:57 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:20:53 -0500, Marten Kemp
>><marte...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote:
>>
[...]
>>>
>>>Have I mentioned recently the Law of Demand and Supply: for any
>>>demand there will arise a supply. Corollary: prohibitions have
>>>never never worked.
>>>
>>>As long as there's a demand for cheap labor there'll be illegal
>>>immigration.
>>
>>That's only half the equation. The full statement would be, "As long
>>as there's a demand for cheap labor and there are restrictions on
>>immigration, there'll be illegal immigration."
>
> So we should just toss our immigration laws, and let anyone who wants
> to--and as many of them as want to--move into this country?
Or cut down on the demand for cheap labour. That seems to be working
right now, isn't it?
>
> I expect that solution would cause even more problems than we
> currently have.
Although I don't think it's a solution at all, he's right about the
prohibition stuff. Wherever there's demand, one way or another there will
be supply.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
Patrick.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
You can get *anywhere* in ten minutes if you drive fast enough.
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
That would be one way to go, make the requirements to move from Sonora
to California comparable to those to move from California to Arizona.
Another would be to increase the country quotas to something vaguely
approaching reality. For instance, if 100,000 people from a
particular country a year enter the country illegally, raise that
countries quota by 100,000 so they can enter the country legally.
>I expect that solution would cause even more problems than we
>currently have.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>
>Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls
>and persuade themselves that they have a better idea.
>
> - John Ciardi
Canth
wrote:
Years ago I saw an article which indicated that the rate of crime
stays relatively constant, regardless of how many criminals are
removed from the system. New criminals appear to fill the places of
those removed. So with illegal immigration from South, just because
you increase your legal quota by 100,000 it won't slow down the
illegal immigration.
The illegal immigration debate is of interest here because with our
recent change of government, the amount of attempted illegal
immigration has risen sharply. The government has caught over fifty
boats with more than five hundred illegals, mostly Tamils & Middle
Eastern refugees.
The outgoing government is of the opinion that this is because the new
government has relaxed the onerous procedure for processing caught
illegals, and is insisting these procedures should be reinstated. I'm
of the opinion it is just a test of the new government to see if they
are going to be just as vigilant.
AS! ds++:+++ a++ c+++ p++ t+ f-- S+ p+ e++ h++ r++ n++ i+ P+ m++ M
Barry Gold
>caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>>That's only half the equation. The full statement would be, "As long
>>as there's a demand for cheap labor and there are restrictions on
>>immigration, there'll be illegal immigration."
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So we should just toss our immigration laws, and let anyone who wants
>to--and as many of them as want to--move into this country?
>
>I expect that solution would cause even more problems than we
>currently have.
Hey, I seem to remember Chris claiming to be a libertarian! A
libertarian should recognize that restrictions on immigration are
purely arbitrary. This reads more like the fairly standard
conservative line.
That said, yes, simply opening up immigration would cause certain
problems. Right now, we have a net gain for Social Security: illegal
aliens who come here and take standard jobs typically pay SS taxes,
but can never collect SS. This helps prop up the whole Ponzi scheme.(*)
If we let anybody who wants to move to the US _legally_, then all
those aliens would be in line to collect SS, which would put the SS
system under more strain. (*NOTE:* this doesn't mean that it would
collapse, merely that the actual strain on SS would more closely
approximate the _already_ predicted strain due to the baby boom. But
it _still_ wouldn't be as bad as predicted, because the prediction
_also_ assumes that immigrants will have the same low birth rate as
3rd+ generation Americans. This is historically false.
Also, opening up immigration would let in more workers to compete for
the existing jobs, thereby putting downward pressure on wages. This
would be partly ameliorated because prices would _also_ come down.
And in any case most US workers are _already_ competing with foreign
ones via "outsourcing", global trade, and other techniques for moving
jobs out of the US and to poorer countries.
At least, if the competition were within the US, the new immigrants
would still be facing the high cost of living in the US. Currently,
US workers have to compete with workers in places where it costs 10%
_or less_ of what it costs to live in most US cities.
Note, btw, that such competition (either by immigration or by moving
jobs overseas) _does_ have benefits in the long term. By making the
rest of the world richer, we (eventually) lower the forces that enable
terrorism and totalitarian governments. Making the rest of the world
richer also increases the demand for US-made goods. This is already
happening in China: as workers get extra money working in plants that
sell stuff to the US, some of them are looking to buy stuff from the
US (and the CHinese government is trying to stop that trend, but the
WTO has ruled against them.) It's just that the pain from immigration
and outsourcing is immediate, while the gain is 10 or 20 years in the
future.
Finally, let me note that many of the disadvantages of illegal
immigration, noted in the starting post of this thread, occur simply
_because_ that immigration is illegal.
Employers can get away with paying illegal immigrants below the
minimum wage, or not paying them at all, because if they complain they
will be deported. If they are made legal, they can complain to OSHA
about unsafe working conditions, underpayment of wages, etc., and the
employer will be in trouble.
My proposal: basically allow anybody to come here who wants to, on a
_temporary_ basis. That "temporary" might be the rest of their
working lives, just like many people who work at "temp" jobs. But that
does not make the migrants legal residents, only temporary workers.
"Guest workers", or to use an old and non-PC term, braceros. That
means they can't collect old age pension here -- so they better save
for their own retirement. This puts "real" US citizens and legal
migrants ("green card" holders) at an _advantage_ vs. the illegals,
because those 'legals' will probably get SS, Medicare, etc. when they
retire, while the guest workers will not be eligible for those even
though they have paid taxes for it. "Unfair"? Yes, but nobody forced
them to come here.
We would, I think, have to modify the 14th amendment: Citizenship
would accrue to those who:
a) have at least one parent who is a US citizen, or
b) are born in the US, and at least one parent is a "legal"
(permanent) US resident.
Children born in the US of "guest worker" parents, become permanent
residents if they are still here when they reach 18. Then the _third_
generation would be citizens.
It still solves the problem the 14th was meant to solve: that black
slaves and their descendents were not considered citizens of the
former slave states. It also avoids the "permanent underclass" that
some European countries have, because you don't end up with 4 or 5
generations of "temporary" workers who can never be citizens because
their x-great-grandparents weren't citizens.
Under this system, if you are a permanent resident your children will
be citizens. If you are a guest worker and have children in the US,
those children will _not_ become citizens (so you don't get to "jump
the queue" as parents of US citizens), but your grandchildren _will_
become citizens.
(*) Not really a Ponzi scheme, strictly speaking, for two reasons:
1. A Ponzi scheme offers unrealistic rates of return, which are
obtained by using new investor's money to pay the older investors.
Since the payoff to existing investors is so high, it is inevitable
that it will run out of money when it can no longer expand at a
high rate. SS pays out a ridiculously _low_ rate of return. The
only reasons SS has any trouble meeting its future obligations are:
a) A temporary bulge (the baby boom), causing the ratio of
current workers vs. retirees to drop below normal.
b) The money isn't invested at all, instead it is loaned to the
same entity (the Federal Government) that also requires workers
to participate in SS. Since that entity's ability to pay its
debts depends on the balance between taxes collected and the cost
of government "services" provided, the whole thing could be
canceled or modified whenever we no longer have the political
will to keep it going.
2. A Ponzi scheme dependson a constant (and growing) supply of new
suckers. SS needs a constant supply of new "suckers"
(participants), but that supply does not need to grow faster than
the population of the US -- it only needs not to shrink too fast.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
MajorOz
> >On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:08:57 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
> >caused Tim Merrigan <t...@ca.rr.com> to write:
> >>That's only half the equation. The full statement would be, "As long
> >>as there's a demand for cheap labor and there are restrictions on
> >>immigration, there'll be illegal immigration."
>
Pretty reasoned suggestions, Barry.
Merry Christmas
oz, cruising youtube for _Merry Christmas From The Family_
MajorOz
> >caused Tim Merrigan <t...@ca.rr.com> to write:
> >>That's only half the equation. The full statement would be, "As long
> >>as there's a demand for cheap labor and there are restrictions on
> >>immigration, there'll be illegal immigration."
>
Then, of course, there is the FICTIONAL -- repeat: FICTIONAL (so a
nameless personage doesn't get knickers twisted) scenario:
1. Canada's prairie provinces finally get pissed, about the relative
tariffs going east or west on the railroads (and other things) that
they secede and petition the US for statehood.
2. Quebec, who feels more French than Canadian, says: "We are now an
independent nation." France immediately recognizes them.
3. The maritimes feel out in the cold and decide: "What the hell --
hey, US, we want in, also".
4. There is now a split Canada, a la East and West Pakistan, made up
of Ontario and BC, with the Yukon proclaiming itself part of Alaska,
and the NWT saying: "huh?"
5. Meanwhile, the expat anglos in Baja are finally fed up with the
(pardon the non-PC expression) banditos and convince the local
governor to petition the Mexican President to allow a US expeditionary
force to come in and kick ass.....while...
6. In Chiapas, the Federalies finally admit they cannot get rid of the
(whaever the Red Guard is calling itself lately) and GENUINLY help the
peons there, so they ask another Exp Force to come in and help.
[ they "just happen" to burn off all the cocoa fields on the way ]
7. And..........drug gangs in Juarez, Eagle Pass, and Tijuana decide
to come over the line and start ....um...mischief, bringing about
retaliation.
8. US president Whatsizename tells all illegal aliens
of.....ahem......Hispanic descent that any who wish to volunteer for
the Exp forces earn US citizenship after X years service -- for them
and their IMMEDIATE family.
8.a) These active and veteran troops campaign for border states in
Mexico to petition for US annexation, and eventual statehood. The
craze spreads, as US-style law enforcement looks so good that the
other states take it up and Mexico, as an independent nation,
dissolves into a number of new US protectorates.
Now:
1. Mexico, all Canada except Ontario and BC have decided to become
"some" part of the US, BUT NOT WITHOUT STRINGS. They are not just
swallowed up. They maintain identity and culture, but BECOME
ASSIMILATED (so as not to be like Quebec). Sure, there is a new bi-
linguallity, but devolves into a hybrid-speak.
2. A North American Union is proclaimed, similar to, and,
simultaneously, different from the science fiction Union of pop
culture, from the North Pole to Honduras.
3. The central government and constitution changes a bit (and this can
be a fun exercise in speculation):
a) The HoR becomes more parlimentary in nature, and assumes the
heavier share of legislative power. But the office of the POTNAU
maintains, essentially, all the power it had as POTUS.
b) The senate maintains its status, but allotement is diddled
with.
c) Contrary to expectations, government becomes LESS
centralized, not more.
4. BC becomes the northern hemisphere equivalent of New Zeland (it
kinda already was), an independent nation, and lives off tourism,
fisheries, and timber. Ontario (all that is left of Canada)
eventually says: "Aw, shit.....ok......we are in the Union, but we
were never Americans".
5. Americans who get smug about sucking up other countries get a
severe cummupance in finding out the true facts of economic life. A
desirable side-effect of this is a major decrease in the redneck
population. (however, NASCAR and the NHL come together in an eerie
combined sport)
6. One by one, Central American countries, with the notable exception
of Belize, join up, as it is just to good a deal to pass up.
Epilogue: The Arctic ocean melts giving the northern hemisphere the
Northwest Passage it has been wanting for 500 years. Costs of sea-
borne in the h-sphere drop dramatically, boosting commerce, economy,
and living conditions. Fuck the polar bears.
Epilogue 2: Argentina and Brazil cooperate to launch a similar
scenario in the South.
Epilogue 3: Quebec becomes a third world dependent, bankrupting the
French government.
.......fun, ain't it.........
cheers
oz, with not enough to do...........
SAMK
Problem is, we be long to an organization which levies high penalties
for enacting levies and tarrifs, The tax law allowing for the domestic
production credit was enacted to replace some of the trade protections
that the WTO severely objected to.
SAMK
Hanging Jester
news:62g2j5hs1od7htjb2...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:03:43 -0800, Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>><snip>
I have talked with INS agents about the number of legal imigrants that
are allowed in. They told me that the reason why quotas are low for
legal immigration from all countries is because of illegal immigration.
These numbers are set on how many people the nation can absorb, and
illegals throw the curve off because they have to try to make a fair
estimate without overly restricting legal immigration. Illegals
immigration must be controlled before raising the quotas, not the other
way around.
~ Jester
Walter Bushell
wrote:
> Most probably make at least minimum
> wage (at least, when they work). They pay taxes. ANd if they can't
> get legal status, they won't be able to collect Social Security.
> That's a nice bonus for those of us who _do_ qualify.
Some pay taxes. Many work off the books. The depress wages and working
conditions.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
Morgan <ljw-mot...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, who are you suggesting "fix Mexico"? It's not the
> USofA's place to go fixing other countries, though we do help when
> invited. I'm sure a great many Mexicans are working on fixing their own
> nation, but I doubt that keeping people from jumping ship northward is
> high on their list of reasons.
We are apparently unable to fix Iraq or Afghanistan so how are we going
to fix Mexico?
David
typed:
>In article <12611449...@irys.nyx.net>, bg...@nyx.net (Barry Gold)
>wrote:
>
>> Most probably make at least minimum
>> wage (at least, when they work). They pay taxes. ANd if they can't
>> get legal status, they won't be able to collect Social Security.
>> That's a nice bonus for those of us who _do_ qualify.
>
>Some pay taxes. Many work off the books. The depress wages and working
>conditions.
Which is why your labour laws need some teeth. If the employer was
fined and/or imprisoned for underpaying wages, as well as having to
make good on the underpayment no matter who the employee was the
problem would be lessened.
--
David
No email replies please.
I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I
will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all
Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they
teach. Oh, tell me that I may sponge away the writing on this stone! --
Charles Dickens
Tim Merrigan
>In article <12611449...@irys.nyx.net>, bg...@nyx.net (Barry Gold)
>wrote:
>
>> Most probably make at least minimum
>> wage (at least, when they work). They pay taxes. ANd if they can't
>> get legal status, they won't be able to collect Social Security.
>> That's a nice bonus for those of us who _do_ qualify.
>
>Some pay taxes. Many work off the books. The depress wages and working
>conditions.
The solution to that is to enforce labor laws and allow unions.
Whether the workers are natives or immigrants doesn't mater as to
their workers' rights. Also, if they're immigrants, whether they're
legal or illegal doesn't matter. The rights are universal.