rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 27, 2007 15:46:38 GMT -5
The thing that makes this new legislation ridiculous in my eyes is just that: It's new legislation. Some 400 odd pages of new legislation directed at improving (removing? fixing?) the illegal alien problem in our country. This suggests that those currently in the country illegally, and the millions who'll arrive illegally, will suddenly take note of this legislation and abide forthrightly by the laws therein. Hell, I should be directing this thread to the Jokes section.
Lots to say from this end, but I'll wait to see if there is interest. I will say that the prez has given his nod of approval. The House votes on this legislation on a nearby horizon.
|
|
|
Post by joew on May 27, 2007 17:47:35 GMT -5
There's a point I hadn't heard before. I suppose the expectation is that those already here illegally will decide that it's worth their while to remove the threat of deportation which is hanging over them. As for the illegals we haven't met yet, they will still be attracted. Securing the borders looks like a must. Easier said than done.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 27, 2007 22:58:57 GMT -5
I have such mixed feelings on this debate that I can't say what side I'm on - especially since I'm astonished whenever I seem to be on Bush's side. So, here are some points to support or refute. 1. It is natural for desperately poor people to go where they can earn money for their families. Labeling them "illegal" (though, of course that's accurate) taints them with criminality. They earn money; they don't steal it. 2. The companies that hire people at substandard wages are guilty of crime; they know only illegals can work for the pittance they offer. 3. Most jobs along the southwestern border that illegals take are truly not wanted by American citizens. 5. However, some workers have lost their jobs in industries that have turned to illegals. I've read this is true in some textile occupations in the Southeast. 6. and finally, for now, why is the security issue only raised with reference to the southern border? Is the border with Canada any less porous?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 28, 2007 0:27:14 GMT -5
Living only 20 miles away, I think of that Canadian border frequently. The "show enforcement" is such that I can't imagine it getting more stringent without severely affecting my daily life, let alone tourism and the economies of both BC and Washington State.
It's not yet required by law, but I carry my passport whenever I cross by car. Though it is obvious I am an American citizen, sometimes the grilling to which we are subjected, as US citizens returning to our own homes, appears to be harrassment just for the heck of it. On the Canadian side, they are always polite and professional.
Just to the east of the I-5 Peace Arch crossing, the border is unprotected for hundreds of miles.
I conclude there is no such thing as guaranteed border security, at least at a tolerable level that does not resemble Cold War "Iron Curtain" border interrogation and restriction. The "immigration reform" legislation seems to be political theater.
As rmn points out, we have plenty of existing laws which are ignored. But if twelve million undocumented workers are immediately deported (a logistic nightmare in itself), who will do the work those people have performed? Unemployment is already low, and we have had crops rotting on the vine or tree here in Washington State, for lack of harvest workers.
In the area of skilled worker visas, the available numbers are clearly inadequate, at least as far as healthcare workers are concerned.
In technology, the sciences, and engineering, I'm not sure this is true. There are complaints of shortages but there are also unemployed American engineers saying they were replaced with lower-wage immigrants. It seems that for IT and textiles, corporations just outsource the work to another country if they can't get cheap enough workers here.
I don't understand the legal verbiage about "touchback trips" and big fines and separating families. I don't know if we should have requirement for US citizenship that excludes some ("Mexican") children who were born on US soil; that has always seemed to me to be a pretty good criterion for citizenship.
I suspect that whatever happens with the legislation, there will be many unanticipated adverse consequences. Recall William Bendix in The Life of Riley - "What a revolting development this is!"
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on May 28, 2007 1:36:04 GMT -5
"In my little restaurant at Monterey [California], we have sat down to table day after day, a Frenchman, two Portuguese, an Italian, a Mexican, and a Scotchman: we had for common visitors an American from Illinois, a nearly pure blood Indian woman, and a naturalised Chinese; and from time to time a Switzer and a German came down from country ranches for the night. No wonder that the Pacific coast is a foreign land to visitors from the Eastern States, for each race contributes something of its own." --Robert Louis Stevenson, "The Old Pacific Capital," Across the Plains, 1879-80
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on May 28, 2007 1:43:29 GMT -5
Nice, pt, very nice.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 28, 2007 8:45:42 GMT -5
Gentle, heartwarming and grand sentiments, indeed. Interesting to ponder what Robert Louis Stevenson's thoughts would be today.
Title VI of the Senate's legislation carries with it some pretty dreadful provisions. Title VI, entitled Nonimmigrants in the United States Previously in Unlawful Status (pause for laughter), establishes a new visa exclusively for illegal aliens. The status of those who are here illegally would change overnight. They'd now be legal. Amnesty would be granted to those who have violated American law.
I'll touch on just a couple provisions:
The visa intended for illegals is called the "Z" Visa. It's also called a temporary visa, even though it can be renewed every four years until the visa holder dies. Essentially, this is a permanent temporary visa. The visa allows holder to work, attend college, or travel abroad. Law-abiding aliens with a normal nonimmigrant visa are not allowed the same privileges.
Backgound checks are required, but the government is provided only 24 hours to conduct them. This is profane. I've been a US citizen all my life and dealt with an exhaustive background check necessary for my current work. It took around a half year to complete. 24 hours? How does this protect the citizenry from criminals and terrorists.
Remember, folks, that Chertoff is soundly in support of this legislation. Does he not know about Mahmoud Abouhalima, an Islamic terrorist who, in 1986, sought and obtained the amnesty intended for seasonal agricultural workers? This bastard eventually became a ringleader in the 1993 terrorist attacks against the WTC. What in the world is Chertoff thinking? Blind support of one's boss, particularly in the face of Islamic terrorism, is criminal.
Lots more dangerous stuff RE: this legislation. GK and DocK, good thoughts. Comments to follow after Dad feeds hungry children.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 28, 2007 9:29:23 GMT -5
I have such mixed feelings on this debate that I can't say what side I'm on - especially since I'm astonished whenever I seem to be on Bush's side. So, here are some points to support or refute. 1. It is natural for desperately poor people to go where they can earn money for their families. Labeling them "illegal" (though, of course that's accurate) taints them with criminality. They earn money; they don't steal it. 2. The companies that hire people at substandard wages are guilty of crime; they know only illegals can work for the pittance they offer. 3. Most jobs along the southwestern border that illegals take are truly not wanted by American citizens. 5. However, some workers have lost their jobs in industries that have turned to illegals. I've read this is true in some textile occupations in the Southeast. 6. and finally, for now, why is the security issue only raised with reference to the southern border? Is the border with Canada any less porous? It is natural for desperately poor people to go where they can earn money for their families. Labeling them "illegal" (though, of course that's accurate) taints them with criminality. They earn money; they don't steal it. Yes, they (percentage? Don't know. Don't know, because we really don't have a fix on the number of illegals here...) earn money. And, on the average they send on the order of 25-30 billion dollars back to Mexico annually.The companies that hire people at substandard wages are guilty of crime; they know only illegals can work for the pittance they offer. Good point. There's a reason why the Hilton family is fond of this proposed legislation. Most jobs along the southwestern border that illegals take are truly not wanted by American citizens. Irrelevant.However, some workers have lost their jobs in industries that have turned to illegals. I've read this is true in some textile occupations in the Southeast. Tyson's Chicken is a huge offender. They've been tagged again and again by the INS. Tough job, but an American can do it for 12-16 dollars an hour. Not terribly bad, considering. The illegal is paid half that. No benefits, by the way. Where is the primary health care setting? Our emergency rooms. Who's paying for it? Not Tyson's....and finally, for now, why is the security issue only raised with reference to the southern border? Is the border with Canada any less porous? Solid point, GK. Why do we even have borders? Why not simply eradicate the entire notion of borders? That's what our prez would like to do. That's what the DHS director would like to do. They don't paint it that way, but that's what they are pushing. This is a paradox of the first order.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 28, 2007 9:50:14 GMT -5
Living only 20 miles away, I think of that Canadian border frequently. The "show enforcement" is such that I can't imagine it getting more stringent without severely affecting my daily life, let alone tourism and the economies of both BC and Washington State. It's not yet required by law, but I carry my passport whenever I cross by car. Though it is obvious I am an American citizen, sometimes the grilling to which we are subjected, as US citizens returning to our own homes, appears to be harassment just for the heck of it. On the Canadian side, they are always polite and professional. Just to the east of the I-5 Peace Arch crossing, the border is unprotected for hundreds of miles. I conclude there is no such thing as guaranteed border security, at least at a tolerable level that does not resemble Cold War "Iron Curtain" border interrogation and restriction. The "immigration reform" legislation seems to be political theater. As rmn points out, we have plenty of existing laws which are ignored. But if twelve million undocumented workers are immediately deported (a logistic nightmare in itself), who will do the work those people have performed? Unemployment is already low, and we have had crops rotting on the vine or tree here in Washington State, for lack of harvest workers. In the area of skilled worker visas, the available numbers are clearly inadequate, at least as far as health care workers are concerned. In technology, the sciences, and engineering, I'm not sure this is true. There are complaints of shortages but there are also unemployed American engineers saying they were replaced with lower-wage immigrants. It seems that for IT and textiles, corporations just outsource the work to another country if they can't get cheap enough workers here. I don't understand the legal verbiage about "touchback trips" and big fines and separating families. I don't know if we should have requirement for US citizenship that excludes some ("Mexican") children who were born on US soil; that has always seemed to me to be a pretty good criterion for citizenship. I suspect that whatever happens with the legislation, there will be many unanticipated adverse consequences. Recall William Bendix in The Life of Riley - "What a revolting development this is!" I conclude there is no such thing as guaranteed border security, at least at a tolerable level that does not resemble Cold War "Iron Curtain" border interrogation and restriction. The "immigration reform" legislation seems to be political theater. We might get to the point where Cold War tactics are the order of the day, DocK. I wish this were simply political theatre, except this legislation has a very real chance of passing thru Congress and we already know that Bush will sign it.As rmn points out, we have plenty of existing laws which are ignored. But if twelve million undocumented workers are immediately deported (a logistic nightmare in itself), who will do the work those people have performed? Unemployment is already low, and we have had crops rotting on the vine or tree here in Washington State, for lack of harvest workers. No one of note is talking about deporting 12 million illegal aliens. The damage has been done. There are many of note who are talking, begging, pleading that something be done about the porous borders and laughable security measures.I don't understand the legal verbiage about "touchback trips" and big fines and separating families. I don't know if we should have requirement for US citizenship that excludes some ("Mexican") children who were born on US soil; that has always seemed to me to be a pretty good criterion for citizenship. That's what the Canadians thought, until the numbers of Chinese women traveling to Canada to have their babies proved too great a burden on the economy. They put a stop to it. Can we put a stop to the Fourteenth Amendment? I think we need to look at it. Discuss it. Citizenship by virtue of birth used to be a splendid idea. I think the situation has changed enough where we need to explore its validity.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 28, 2007 10:32:28 GMT -5
The "political theater" part is that many people think that this legislation is a serious attempt to secure the border. In actuality, it's an effort by politicians to look like they are doing something, instead of really doing something.
How does demanding that I prove that I am a doctor before I re-enter my country contribute to enhanced security? There is no law requiring that I carry my framed medical diploma with me everywhere I go outside the US. If specious grilling of every American returning to the US from Canada is seen as appropriate (remember I've already provided the border guard with my passport and driver's license, and sometimes vehicle registration and proof of insurance), that's more Cold-War-like than I care to submit to in the name of "security."
Appropriate focus has been lost, and looks to be further distracted by this proposed reform legislation. That is why this smacks of theater, not security.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 28, 2007 10:43:32 GMT -5
The "political theater" part is that many people think that this legislation is a serious attempt to secure the border. In actuality, it's an effort by politicians to look like they are doing something, instead of really doing something. How does demanding that I prove that I am a doctor before I re-enter my country contribute to enhanced security? There is no law requiring that I carry my framed medical diploma with me everywhere I go outside the US. If specious grilling of every American returning to the US from Canada is seen as appropriate (remember I've already provided the border guard with my passport and driver's license, and sometimes vehicle registration and proof of insurance), that's more Cold-War-like than I care to submit to in the name of "security." Appropriate focus has been lost, and looks to be further distracted by this proposed reform legislation. That is why this smacks of theater, not security. Understood. It sounds like you've dealt with a few idiots at the border. DocK, are we talking about a few ill-mannered border patrol employees or an effort, albeit a minimal one, to increase vigilance on our borders? Let's take this argument to the airports. We both travel quite a lot and experience one humiliation after the next, regardless of the airport in question. I've resigned myself to it. It can get a lot "worse" and I'll not complain about it. Don't you think this has become the way of the world, particularly in light of the evils around us?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 28, 2007 14:51:44 GMT -5
Airport "security theater" need not be the way of the world, IMHO. The TSA is seems too reactive, "securing" against what happened last year, instead of thinking about what our enemies might try next. We all have to stroll barefoot through unsanitary WTMD, just in case.
X-ray of carry-on items is not designed to detect explosives, but equipment that would detect them is not used. Most cargo on commercial aircraft is not inspected at all. TSA screeners can't tell the difference between cc's and ounces, and they repeatedly miss contraband items on test screens done for "quality control."
Even if we agree that security theater is necessary, there is no need for habitual rudeness and stupidity.
Border agents seem more intelligent and professional, so stupid behavior is relatively rare, but so are good manners, at least on the US side. One would think they have been forbidden to use the terms please, thank you, good morning/evening. They are public servants after all. The Canadians are always polite, sometimes even friendly: "Welcome to Canada. Enjoy your visit!"
US authorities used to say "Welcome home" after polite scrutiny of one's documents.
For more than three years, I travelled with a well-used passport that had multiple Afghan, Pakistani, and UAE visas; there was even a green post-it tab on the Afghan visa page. Never once was I questioned by a US border agent about my travels to these nations, though I would think such an inquiry is indicated, if we are really concerned about securing our borders against terrorists.
Overall I have a low opinion of these "protective" measures, whose weak or even farcical nature seems pervasive. I am therefore skeptical that any new laws will somehow be more effective.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 28, 2007 15:22:50 GMT -5
Yes, we've got a lot of work to do. I think we both agree that this proposed legislation will not suffice, except to sustain a few political careers.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on May 29, 2007 3:35:33 GMT -5
//Gentle, heartwarming and grand sentiments, indeed. Interesting to ponder what Robert Louis Stevenson's thoughts would be today.//
As it happens, Stevenson's sentiments were more realistic than "grand."
STEVENSON: "The town, then, was essentially and wholly Mexican; and yet almost all the land in the neighbourhood was held by Americans, and it was from the same class, numerically so small, that the principal officials were selected. This Mexican and that Mexican would describe to you his old family estates, not one rood of which remained to him. You would ask him how that came about, and elicit some tangled story back-foremost, from which you gathered that the Americans had been greedy like designing men, and the Mexicans greedy like children, but no other certain fact. Their merits and their faults contributed alike to the ruin of the former landholders. It is true they were improvident, and easily dazzled with the sight of ready money; but they were gentlefolk besides, and that in a way which curiously unfitted them to combat Yankee craft. Suppose they have a paper to sign, they would think it a reflection on the other party to examine the terms with any great minuteness; nay, suppose them to observe some doubtful clause, it is ten to one they would refuse from delicacy to object to it. I know I am speaking within the mark, for I have seen such a case occur, and the Mexican, in spite of the advice of his lawyer, has signed the imperfect paper like a lamb. To have spoken in the matter, he said, above all to have let the other party guess that he had seen a lawyer, would have "been like doubting his word." The scruple sounds oddly to one of ourselves, who have been brought up to understand all business as a competition in fraud, and honesty itself to be a virtue which regards the carrying out but not the creation of agreements. This single unworldly trait will account for much of that revolution of which we are speaking. The Mexicans have the name of being great swindlers, but certainly the accusation cuts both ways. In a contest of this sort, the entire booty would scarcely have passed into the hands of the more scupulous race."
Now, back to a discussion of those dastardly illegals!
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 29, 2007 8:58:28 GMT -5
Now, back to a discussion of those dastardly illegals!Sarcasm has its place. God knows, I employ its use more than you, good sir. But, you're right; let's get back to the discussion. There is nothing dastardly about the majority of illegals, in my estimation. What is dastardly about the state of affairs is a reluctance, actually refusal, to enforce existing immigration laws. Indeed, few policy-makers have a vested interest. Democrats savor the potentiality of a bolstered electorate and Republicans are rubbing their collective hands together with all the cheap labor illegals bring about. Interesting that the mission of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will change erratically with this reform legislation. No longer will gang members be automatically deported (as if they were to any credible degree in the first place) upon apprehension. ICE officers will be relegated to case worker status. They'll be required to guide these gang members, many of whom are illegal, to locales where they can fill out the request for the "Z" visa. Too, the gang members will be given a document providing them the opportunity to disavow any allegiance to their respective gangs. They sign the document, they are good to go. That includes members of MS-13. If you don't know who they are, Y'all can google that band of prospective Americans. Dastardly illegals? Sometimes, yes. Most often, no. We have existing laws. My point is that we enforce them with great vigilance and with a pronounced sense of urgency. Race hasn't a bloody thing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 29, 2007 9:19:36 GMT -5
I don't think we've called them dastardly illegals, PT. [
The point I was making about jobs on the southern border - which is not irrelevant, RMN - is that the most furious objections are coming from guys who don't like brown people. The issue of brown-ness and foreign-ness can't be danced around. If these illegals were from Saskatchewan, we'd hear far less about the crisis in immigration - and we sure wouldn't have passed a bill to build a wall.
But there are other objections that are valid. The cost to some areas of the country is truly a burden. This is a national issue being left to individual states and communities. I know a bit of what that must feel like because we have illegals from Mexico and Guatemala - some of those horrendous INS raids happened here and in Wisconsin - and we have tons of refugees from Laos and Somalia. We started out warm and welcoming; now the population of people needing services is ballooning. (Those parts of the country complaining about signs with Spanish on them should look at ours - English, Spanish, Hmong, Russian, and whatever Somalis speak.)
So the immigration problem is a problem. Denying that it is a problem does nothing to counter the subtly racist arguments of Herr Tancredo.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 29, 2007 10:18:18 GMT -5
So the immigration problem is a problem. Denying that it is a problem does nothing to counter the subtly racist arguments of Herr Tancredo. Herr Tancredo? I wouldn't expect that from you, GK. Following is a report on Tancredo from a few days ago. Does he have a chance at the presidency? Absolutely not. But his drive toward immigration reform is singular in spirit and conviction. In my humble opinion, we need more like him. (WASHINGTON, D.C. - May 17, 2007) – U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today criticized the Senate immigration plan penned by Sens. McCain (AZ) and Kennedy (MA) and President Bush. This plan, like its predecessor proposals, would provide instant amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and a pathway to citizenship. “Senator McCain and his allies seem to think that they can dupe the American public into accepting a blanket amnesty if they just call it ‘comprehensive’ or ‘earned legalization’ or ‘regularization.’ Unfortunately for them, however, the American people know amnesty when they see it,” said Tancredo. “The President is so desperate for a legacy and a domestic policy win that he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security.” “If Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy spent as much time working on improving border security as they did poll testing creative euphemisms for amnesty, America would be a much safer place,” quipped Tancredo. The plan would grant an immediate amnesty for nearly all 12 – 20 million illegal aliens who will get legal status for residence and jobs (with assurance of green cards no later than 13 years); Tripling of the rate of chain migration of extended family from around 250,000 a year to around 750,000 a year for about a decade; and New flows of 400,000 temporary foreign workers each year, bringing their families and having anchor babies who will be given U.S. citizenship. Tancredo concluded, “This amnesty plan will be a slap in the face to hard working Americans and those who have come here to work legally. I just hope Speaker Pelosi keeps her promise to bar amnesty legislation from the House floor.”
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 29, 2007 13:08:27 GMT -5
I don't think gailkate is far off in her characterization of Tom Tancredo, though "Herr" suggests a lean toward Naziism, while I think his leanings are actually more toward the Ku Klux Klan. And the nation of cowardice and hypocrisy.
I lived in Denver, Colorado from the late 70's to the early 90's, where Mr. Tancredo was a public school teacher, council member and political appointee before he began his Congressional career. He ran for Congress (in the district of astronaut-hero Jack Swigert, no less) on a platform of strict adherence to term limits (3 terms max) and in fact had a sponsored a term limit amendment into the Colorado state constitution, which he flaunts. He was a member of College Republicans and YAF during the early years of the Viet Nam War and a strong supporter of that war, but when he graduated college and became eligible for the draft, suddenly, he was deferred due to "mental illness" which allegedly rendered him unfit for duty.
He employed illegal workers to remodel his house (cheaper that way, doncha know), while he began his vigorous campaign against illegals. When David Duke (Grand Klansman of Louisiana, and gubernatorial candidate who narrowly lost to convict Edwin Edwards in the "crook vs the klan" election) came to town in the mid-80's, guess who was hosting him and championing him as the hope of "the new south" and the nation? Tom Tancredo! I saw David Duke speak in Denver that week, and though he looked nice and serious in a suit, it was quite clear he was still the same old poisonous racist at heart. That was a long time ago, but supporting a Klansman is sufficiently egregious offense that I am unlikely to believe Tancredo is "changed." Especially since Tancredo's recent appearances at Southern venues draped with the Stars and Bars (Confederate flag), replete with people in Klan and white supremicist attire all joined in singing "Dixie," the southern "national anthem."
My great grandfather fought for the Confederacy, and my relatives are long-time Deep South people. I can understand that there are some who feel that "Dixie" and the Stars and Bars are part of their southern heritage, not necessarily linked to racism and segregation. But a national candidate who panders to this element so blatantly earns nothing but disgust in my book. In fact, he earned the same from me years ago when we were both Coloradans.
I don't like the idea of granting MS-13 thugs citizenship either; better legislation is a preferred way to deal with this. But if it comes to a choice between national office for racists vs errant granting of citizenship, I'll take my chances with the latter. Thugs can be denied or imprisoned based on their criminal record, if they aren't killed by their gang enemies first. Put someone like David Duke or Tom Tancredo in office, and their sleaze is there permanently. Incumbents have a 98% success rate in re-election.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 29, 2007 13:39:57 GMT -5
I am familiar with these facts. That's why I said he had no chance at the presidency. I can deal with hypocrisy. Most of the politicians with who I'm familiar are guilty of same, some more egregiously so than others. We deal with the lot we've elected. And, the man carries some weight in Congress.
I don't think the inherent problems associated with 12 million to 25 million illegals in this country is rendered less significant simply by virtue of an argument tendered by someone who hasn't met your morale standards. We are getting away from the problem at hand. We can take turns raking politicians over the coals. You think Tancredo is a scumbag. I think he's a less-than-moral soul who carries weight with his elected peers. Moreover, he can help relegate this ridiculous proposed legislation to the garbage can.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 29, 2007 14:10:09 GMT -5
"Herr" was strong. But Tancredo is the one who's played the polls to find himself a galvanizing issue among latent Klansmen.
I'm surprised, too, RMN. Where did you get this? The plan would grant an immediate amnesty for nearly all 12 – 20 million illegal aliens who will get legal status for residence and jobs (with assurance of green cards no later than 13 years); Tripling of the rate of chain migration of extended family from around 250,000 a year to around 750,000 a year for about a decade; and New flows of 400,000 temporary foreign workers each year, bringing their families and having anchor babies who will be given U.S. citizenship.
Not only is it extraordinarily slanted, not reportage at all, it is patently untrue. If by "immediate amnesty" it means we will not tomorrow arrest every illegal and incarcerate him/her including infants, I guess it could be called amnesty. I personally don't want our attention directed to such a self-defeating objective, focusing dollars and defenses on these non-aggressors. They're pouring tar, laying shingles on 120º roofs, working on the killing floors of meatpackers and living six to a motel room. They are not my enemy.
"Anchor babies" is such an ugly concept I can't imagine a father like you subscribing to it. What are you actually worried about? I could accuse you of unvarnished racism, but I'd rather you cool down and tell us what has you so worried.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 29, 2007 15:15:26 GMT -5
//I'm surprised, too, RMN. Where did you get this? The plan would grant an immediate amnesty for nearly all 12 – 20 million illegal aliens who will get legal status for residence and jobs (with assurance of green cards no later than 13 years); Tripling of the rate of chain migration of extended family from around 250,000 a year to around 750,000 a year for about a decade; and New flows of 400,000 temporary foreign workers each year, bringing their families and having anchor babies who will be given U.S. citizenship.// These words are Tancredo's. But, there's no need in guessing as to the direction of the legislation. If interested, you can find the entire legislation and synopses thereof at www.heritage.org. I hope the conservative site doesn't turn anyone away. No sarcasm intended, GK. What am I actually worried about? I've already spelled out a number of issues. There are plenty more outlined under Title VI of this legislation. Read away, given the time and the inclination. I'm fast regretting bringing this thread to light. Love the crowd and the figures herein, but I see too many heads in the sand. Maybe I'm mistaken on this count, though I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 29, 2007 18:05:14 GMT -5
"heads in the sand" implies we don't see a looming danger. The only danger you've raised is the likelihood of another Mahmoud Abouhalima getting a visa in this country. But that's true of people who come here on visitors' visas now - working, going to school, any of them could be a killer. So if you are concerned about what seem like weak background checks, that applies to all non-citizens, legal or otherwise. I suspect your job is in finance or some kind of government security. (Yikes, everyone, what if RMN is CIA? ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) ) Most people are not subjected to more than a basic background check, not one taking half a year. When I worked in state government, a new hire would be sent to our Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for a background check. I don't know what it entailed beyond their name being run through the computer, probably not even fingerprinting, since no one I hired ever mentioned that. It was seen as a necessary step in the hiring process but no one who was already on staff had to go through it. We had a number of Middle Easterners who could have sabotaged highways or bridges, but they weren't given any check if they had been hired before this policy went into effect (late 90s, pre-9/11). I think people who hire illegals should be prosecuted. But they also need some help, because they're not experts in spotting phony documents. I think we need more border guards on all borders- land, air and sea. I think anyone caught entering illegally should be deported and if he's caught again, sent to jail. (Of course, for many of them, our jail meals might be preferable to what they're used to.) As for the loss of money going back to their families at home, that's a problem. We do need a system that requires them to have health insurance before money gets sent home. But otherwise, what's the objection? American citizens send money out of the country every time they buy shoes from WalMart or Gucci loafers. American manufacturers and even service industries send money out by building factories in Malaysia and Brazil or outsourcing support jobs to India. I don't know if this plan has any chance of working. If it does, many of those people will shore up Social Security, which is about to implode. I hope they're protected from rapacious businesses that are taking advantage of them now. I hope all undesirable jobs are made desirable by raising wages for citizens and non-citizens alike. And I don't like the idea of breaking the law being given an easy pass. I didn't like it when Ford gave one to Richard Milhouse Nixon either.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 29, 2007 19:50:53 GMT -5
OK I read the Heritage website information on immigration, and found very little that I disagree with in principle. In practicality, I see some major issues.
First, most of the writings suggest that various security and immigration functions be moved/consolidated under DHS to strengthen them. If there is one thing we all seem to agree on, it's that Michael Chertoff is incompetent. How will giving him more responsibilities improve things?
Security checks - most legal visitors have to get visas, which process involves considerably more than 24 hours. I don't think illegals being given amnesty should get a shortcut here, or treated differently (better) than legal visitors/immigrants. In fact, I think I side with the majority of Americans in opposing blanket amnesty. If Congress passes this legislation and it is signed - to appease the extremes on both sides ("liberals who want to let everyone in and conservative business owners who want cheap labor"), they will pay at the ballot box next year.
I was surprised that Heritage states that most illegals cross the borders illegally ("wetbacks"); my readings have taught me that most illegals enter legally, then overstay the terms of their entry. That is why I have felt so strongly that border crossings and transportation security should be robust, not theater.
My experience with legal immigrants (or trying to hire a qualified alien legally) is that standards must be met - they have to have financial support, guaranteed job, and are not eligible for US government handouts. On the other hand, on the healthcare provider side, hospitals and doctors are required by Federal law to evaluate and treat all comers (legal/illegal/whatever) until stable, while providing language interpreters at our own expense if they do not speak English. I don't object to caring for all in need, to the extent of my abilities to do so (that is the Hippocratic oath), but this super-requirement of Federal law aids and abets illegal immigrants, to the detriment of all. At the same time they are allegedly attempting to reduce illegal entry.
I don't think there is actually much difference between us on these important issues of security rmn. I do think Tancredo is a hypocritical scumbag, but that is not unique. However, there are many other more reasonable politicians who oppose this faulty legislation without embracing the Klan and the white supremicists, so I draw the line there for myself. And I don't think he enjoys the support of others in congress. The Democrats reject him for obvious reasons, while the Republicans keep clear for fear of "losing Florida," or being seen as allied with extemists who would carry us back to the days of lynchings.
There are plenty of good legislators who are no doubt getting an earful of opposition while home in their districts this week, so I'd look for some changes that improve the legislation.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 29, 2007 20:26:18 GMT -5
//heads in the sand" implies we don't see a looming danger. The only danger you've raised is the likelihood of another Mahmoud Abouhalima getting a visa in this country. But that's true of people who come here on visitors' visas now - working, going to school, any of them could be a killer. So if you are concerned about what seem like weak background checks, that applies to all non-citizens, legal or otherwise.//
This man arrived illegally, having applied for a seasonal agricultural visa. He traveled to NY, applied for, and became a taxi driver. He was a filthy terrorist.
//Most people are not subjected to more than a basic background check, not one taking half a year. When I worked in state government, a new hire would be sent to our Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for a background check. I don't know what it entailed beyond their name being run through the computer, probably not even fingerprinting, since no one I hired ever mentioned that. It was seen as a necessary step in the hiring process but no one who was already on staff had to go through it. We had a number of Middle Easterners who could have sabotaged highways or bridges, but they weren't given any check if they had been hired before this policy went into effect (late 90s, pre-9/11).//
A policeman can conduct a check at a traffic stop. The check involves a full name, an address, a DOB, and a SSN. It'll take about three minutes on a good night. This check will tell the officer if there are any outstanding warrants. That's it. We live in a post 9/11 era. I think this is fast becoming passé.
//I think people who hire illegals should be prosecuted. But they also need some help, because they're not experts in spotting phony documents. I think we need more border guards on all borders- land, air and sea. I think anyone caught entering illegally should be deported and if he's caught again, sent to jail. (Of course, for many of them, our jail meals might be preferable to what they're used to.)//
That might be right. They might prefer our jails to the environment they've left. That's not the problem of an American citizen. There are appropriate channels through which these folks can travel. They know. We know. What's the problem?
//As for the loss of money going back to their families at home, that's a problem. We do need a system that requires them to have health insurance before money gets sent home. But otherwise, what's the objection? American citizens send money out of the country every time they buy shoes from WalMart or Gucci loafers. American manufacturers and even service industries send money out by building factories in Malaysia and Brazil or outsourcing support jobs to India.//
They already have health insurance, GK. It's called our emergency rooms that you pay for with the legitimate medical insurance you have.
//I don't know if this plan has any chance of working. If it does, many of those people will shore up Social Security, which is about to implode. I hope they're protected from rapacious businesses that are taking advantage of them now. I hope all undesirable jobs are made desirable by raising wages for citizens and non-citizens alike.//
What? Illegal aliens will shore up social security? Surely, you must be joking. If you are illegal, how much are you paying into social security? Federal taxes? Medicare? Medicaid? Local school districts? GK, we're paying the tab. Are there exceptions? Perhaps, but few and far between.
//And I don't like the idea of breaking the law being given an easy pass. I didn't like it when Ford gave one to Richard Milhouse Nixon either.//
Now, that's most likely another thread, wouldn't you think? Knowing me, I'll probably end up generating it.
Sigh.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 29, 2007 20:53:44 GMT -5
And I don't think he (Tancredo [rmn]) enjoys the support of others in congress. The Democrats reject him for obvious reasons, while the Republicans keep clear for fear of "losing Florida," or being seen as allied with extremists who would carry us back to the days of lynchings. I don't know. Florida is about as corrupt as can be. Many maniacal, anti-Castro nuts in that sector would lynch anyone opposed to their collective view. I’d like to say I haven’t seen it firsthand (figuratively). America has never had a Cuba problem, has it? It's always been the anti-Castro nuts in FLA causing a myriad difficulties. Tancredo would be a veritable beacon on the horizon by comparison, don't ya think? ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 29, 2007 23:19:18 GMT -5
shhhhhh, rmn. Do not tell anyone about these problems in Florida. Until very recently, the pres' brother ran the joint, so if you let anyone know there are problems, it might reflect badly upon the Bush family name. Some might even start to think George W has some problems governing.
For Mr. Tancredo, nope, I still feel:
I do not like him with a fox I do not like him in a box I do not like him here or there I do not like him anywhere.
Send Sam I Am or The Cat in the Hat instead.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on May 29, 2007 23:21:07 GMT -5
I think my earlier point was lost; Robert Louis Stevenson's observation about California remains true. In the West, Pacific west and Southwest, people are simply more tolerant of undocumented workers and would approve of some sort of amnesty for them. Most of the cities on our southern border are actually the American half of larger transnational communities. Calixico/Mexicali is but one example. What has triggered the current immigration "crisis" is the fact that undocumented immigrants have now reached into regions not quite so tolerant of them, or of anyone "different" (e.g., Colorado, Georgia, Alabama).
"Tancredo" means, literally, a darkened belief! Spooky.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 30, 2007 0:06:38 GMT -5
I dunno PT - the people I know who complain the most about illegals are those who live in southern California, Texas, and Arizona. Colorado has long had a large Hispanic population which was, in fact, the indigenous population hundreds of years ago (long before white people arrived), which migrated north in the summer and south in the winter - back to Mexico and Central America. A large segment remained permanently in the San Luis Valley, and is there to this day, with centuries of roots in the area.
The Front Range also has a large network of sanctuary churches which has long protected more recently arrived undocumented workers from deportation. In the last 25 years, Denver has had consecutive mayors of color - Hispanic (Pena) and Black (Webb and Early), despite the fact that the city is majority white. I don't think Coloradans in general are unfamiliar with these people who are "different." Tancredo repressents the wealthy white suburbs, where some Denver residents fled to escape court-ordered bussing, not so different from the racist south.
The "tolerant" Pacific Northwest packed American citizens of Asian descent off to internment camps by the tens of thousands during WWII, and has been very slow to apologize, let alone make reparations.
I can't speak for Alabama or Georgia. I visited a Hmong Community Center in St. Paul, MN where the Laotians were extremely grateful for the support and refuge offered in the US, but where it was also subtly evident there were some difficulties fitting in, although they were legal immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 30, 2007 0:19:00 GMT -5
And gailkate, I have read economic analyses that document your point about immigrants supporting Social Security. They are younger than the general population, and if they use a false social security number, the taxes are paid, but they will never actually collect the benefits.
Not to worry, anyway - the looming Social Security could be fixed simply by eliminating the cap on income subject to the tax. That is, those earning over $97,000 per year would pay the tax on that income which is now exempt.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 30, 2007 9:31:37 GMT -5
Thanks for so much good information. I must quickly clarify that I don't hope to take advantage of immigrants by reaping the benefits of SocSec that they can't collect themselves. I just meant that this infusion of people adds young workers to keep the system going. We have to balance the costs of burgeoning population with programs that require workers to sustain. Although the country seems overcrowded in places, I guess we boomers didn't supply enough replacements (alas, I didn't). And yes, we need to raise the cap on SS-taxed income.
I know, that's off track. I think the crux is the fear of poor immigrants toppling the system and also providing cover for true terrorists. Identifying terrorists is crucial for us all. I'm just bothered by the focus on Mexican immigrants when the 19 killers came here by air from Middle Eastern countries, another came from Canada, and apparently terrorists were filtering in from all over the map at least the early 90s. Our system failed to stop most of them. A border agent stopped the guy who planned to bomb LAX. Plots to kidnap and torture people have been uncovered here and in Britain, sometimes by sheer luck. When attention is diverted from this very complex and critical work to the Lou Dobbs-fomented illegal immigrant issue, I get steamed. I'm not sure we're one whit safer than we were 10 years ago.
And, darn, DrK, now you've got me worrying about strolling barefoot through unsanitary WTMD What the heck is that? Should we all take off our shoes and slip baggies on our feet till we get through the screening?
|
|