They Are Vital To our Economy...Not

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quite amazing that your diatribe and outburst only included a few insults, and no drunken sailor outbursts.

Maybe being a moderator is Resinate's way of moderating you....

By the way, most small businessmen favor the republican party, so it is fact most republican (not democrat) business owners are the ones that hire illegals.....

If this country genuinly needs low skilled workers, then simply immigrate them legally.....

Quote from Pabst:

In Z's stupefied, socialistic stupor, he's determined to outdo the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. Now we're to believe that ailing GM has an auto plant hidden beneath the desert floor employing illegals at wages a fifth of those offered in Flint. Or those Mexicans you see trimming hedges, cleaning toilets, and bussing tables in the cafeteria at Intel, Citibank, and IBM are the tools of greed used by big business. What the hell kind of work do you think these people do?

Illegals dominate in industries like landscaping, house cleaning, restaurant services, farming, and construction. Tradermaji was speaking about the lack of workers in New Orleans to rebuild after Katrina. I have no doubts. I've been in SoFla for several months and it's very difficult to find laborers here in the Wilma aftermath. My neighbor installs rain gutters. Even with ten workers he's backlogged through August.

Get this through your heads. There's a shortage of low skilled low wage workers among Americans. Period! If you all are so delusional that you belive an unemployed software developer would take a job cleaning fish at a supermarket if only the pay were better than you're on drugs. Big business has NOTHING TO DO with immigration policy. As if Exxon or Haliburton or J.P. Morgan are dependant upon cheap labor. Get a life.

 

[sulong]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:



If this country genuinly needs low skilled workers, then simply immigrate them legally.....

Z,
Pabst said "low skilled" for a kindness.
He also said "low waged", which was closer to his point.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

More political posturing. The advocates for a "comprehensive" solution cannot answer a basic question: what will they do with the illegals that simply ignore the new law? They talk tough about those who have violated the law or are not working being sent home. Why aren't we doing that now? Do we have to grant all the others an amnesty before we can begin to take minimal steps to enforce existing law? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is kind of a low rent version of McCain, says it will be political suicide for the Republicans to filibuster the Committee amnesty bill. I think they are looking at a devastating loss if they pass an amnesty bill, particularly if Bush continues to ignore border security.

I guess they think talk radio will have gone on to another topic by the elections, and their corporate masters can lean on guys like Rush and force them back into line. We'll see.

***************************



Frist Wants Immigration Vote This Week

Apr 2, 6:34 PM (ET)

By HOPE YEN


WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday he wants a full Senate vote on an immigration bill this week and believes that urgent action is needed despite sharp divisions over whether proposed legislation would amount to amnesty.

"There are 3 million people every year coming across our borders illegally. We don't know who they are; we don't know what their intentions are. We absolutely must address it," said Frist, R-Tenn. "I hope by Friday that we will have a bill on the floor that is comprehensive."

A chief sponsor of a House bill, meanwhile, also called on the Senate to avoid deadlock so lawmakers in both houses can start work on reaching a compromise "for our national security and our economic well-being."

"No bill will end up being the worst of all possible worlds," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "This will be tough, and it's the toughest thing that I've done in 37 years in elective public office. But it is an important priority."

The Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved a bill aimed at strengthening enforcement of U.S. borders, regulating the flow into the country of so-called guest workers, and determining the legal future of the illegal population scattered across all 50 states.

The Senate version, which passed 12-6 in committee and was broadly endorsed by President Bush, goes further than the House bill that imposes criminal penalties, proposes building a fence along the borders and is limited to enforcement.

Still, several lawmakers, including Frist, have criticized as unacceptable the Senate provisions that would let illegal aliens already in the U.S. seek citizenship without returning to their home country, paying fines and learning English.

Saying that issue was the "fundamental question," Frist said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition" that he believes the final Senate version will address ways to provide eventual legal status to some of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

"I don't think we should legislate a track that gives a privileged status to people who broke the law," Frist said. "If somebody is here and they're a felon or multiple misdemeanors or somebody who is not working, someone who has been here for a year ... yes, I think they'd have to go back home."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., predicted the full Senate will approve the committee's bill and doubted that some Republicans will try to stage a filibuster to block it.

"It would be political suicide for our party to filibuster a comprehensive solution to a real problem facing America," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday.""It would be political suicide to ignore there's 11 million people, illegally undocumented, who are trying to work and add value to our country."

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, said it is "conceivable" the Senate will reach consensus but called the House bill unacceptable. Allowing illegal aliens already here to seek citizenship is necessary since deporting millions of workers is unrealistic, he said.

"People will have to demonstrate that they're working hard and they're paying taxes, that they have no criminal record," said Durbin, who appeared with Sensenbrenner on CBS'"Face the Nation."

"Some will be able to meet these requirements; some will not. But it's the only way to bring people out of the shadows and have a system consistent with American values," he said

 

[achilles28]

Quote from dddooo:



PS AAA, I am not talking about you personally of course, I am talking about the "free market at any cost" crowd.

That crowd starts and ends with politicians, their corporate backers and academics.

Hardcore Libertarians might agree. But their numbers are inconsequential to effect any change whatsoever, for or against.

The majority of Americans want this country to revert back to the original principles on which it was founded - small government, more freedom = moderated libertarianism or *real* conservativism.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from achilles28:

That crowd starts and ends with politicians, their corporate backers and academics.

Hardcore Libertarians might agree. But their numbers are inconsequential to effect any change whatsoever, for or against.

The majority of Americans want this country to revert back to the original principles on which it was founded - small government, more freedom = moderated libertarianism or *real* conservativism.

Yeah, they do want to revert back to that kind of US, but they also want to hang on to their consumptive lifestyle that is about 10 orders of magnitude greater than what it was at founding. In other words, they want an extraordinarily complex society with minimal governance.

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It's very clear what's going on here and it is ugly. Democrats see a vast pool of poor, uneducated people who fit their party's voter profile. Republicans fear a backlash from the hispanic groups, and their corporate backers like the cheap labor. Voters on both sides are heavily against illegal immigration and amnesty schemes, but they are being ignored.

Oh, give me a fckng break, AAA! This is not the Democrats' fault.

There are some on the left who believe we should open the doors to anyone and everyone, but the REAL problem here is cheap labor. The right tries to keep this quiet, but the all these supposed "conservatives" who want the cheap labor are the real problem.

Just utter bullsht. I grew up in California and it was the ultra-conservative Farm Bureau who kept the fckng doors open for illegals.

Get off your gaddamn partisan horse for once in your fckng life, AAA.

bt

 

[Sam123]

Quote from BloodTrader:

Oh, give me a fckng break, AAA! This is not the Democrats' fault.

There are some on the left who believe we should open the doors to anyone and everyone, but the REAL problem here is cheap labor. The right tries to keep this quiet, but the all these supposed "conservatives" who want the cheap labor are the real problem.

Just utter bullsht. I grew up in California and it was the ultra-conservative Farm Bureau who kept the fckng doors open for illegals.

Get off your gaddamn partisan horse for once in your fckng life, AAA.

bt

The problem is not cheap labor. The problem is not regulating the HUGE demand for these jobs –and both parties are enabling that. The work may pay nothing to you, but its a $$$ machine for illegals. People don’t risk their lives to illegally enter foreign countries if they think the work they seek pays shit.

We hear they take the jobs “we don’t want.” Rather, they choose a standard of living and lifestyle that is unacceptable to most Americans. They don’t mind living in neighborhoods Americans don’t like and move away from, and they don’t mind living with 9 other people in a room, because it’s still better than the conditions they grew up in. Besides, these neighborhoods are Hispanic enclaves they find familiar. It’s like an upscale Mexican town to them.

They get all these benefits they never dreamed of having –and they don’t have to be American citizens to get it. They know that if Americans try to slap another Proposition 187 on them, a friendly liberal judge (who undoubtedly votes Democrat) will legislate from the bench and find it “unconstitutional.”

On top of all that, the Illegals have money left over to practice financial arbitrage between the U.S. and Mexico: higher pay in the U.S.; lower cost of living in Mexico. They work in the states and send their money back home to increase the wealth of their families. Just $100 U.S. can dramatically improve the standard of living in a Mexican household (since the cost of living is dirt-cheap), whereas $100 doesn’t pay shit in America.

The real problem is both parties are not responding to the popular desire to regulate our borders and assimilate the foreign nationalists who come here to cash in, rather than immigrate to assimilate. Democrats always increase the cost of doing businesses by increasing the cost of labor. That’s why most businesses vote Republican, and most businesses want illegals to stay illegal so they can get around the costs associated with legal labor. At the same time, Democrats are whores to ethnocentric Hispanic groups and organizations that seek open borders to Latinize America with foreign nationals who want to cash in on the financial arbitrage, but not willing to assimilate to English society.

Meanwhile, the Democrat-voting Left continues to generate propaganda (public polls) that makes it seem as if most Americans want open borders and want to give amnesty to unassimilating Latinos.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from BloodTrader:

Oh, give me a fckng break, AAA! This is not the Democrats' fault.

There are some on the left who believe we should open the doors to anyone and everyone, but the REAL problem here is cheap labor. The right tries to keep this quiet, but the all these supposed "conservatives" who want the cheap labor are the real problem.

Just utter bullsht. I grew up in California and it was the ultra-conservative Farm Bureau who kept the fckng doors open for illegals.

Get off your gaddamn partisan horse for once in your fckng life, AAA.

bt

I don't know what you're so steamed about. The fact is the Democrats are very soft on illegal immigration, as long as it is from countries that will send us poor minorities. Who do you think fought Prop 187 in California? Democrat Gov. Davis failed to appeal the court decision knocking it down. The "enforcement only" bill passed by the House was a Republican initiative. Democrats opposed it. Every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voted for the McCain Kennedy guest worker/amnesty bill.

I'm not trying to whitewash the republicans' failures. Bush has been out to lunch on border security, immigration,etc. So are a lot of the Senate republicans, for the reasons I stated, fear of an hispanic backlash and desire of business for cheap labor. But both parties are out of step with the public, although I would concede the Republicans are more out of step with their supporters, who tend to feel very strongly on this issue.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Sam123:

...if Americans try to slap another Proposition 187 on them, a friendly liberal judge (who undoubtedly votes Democrat) will legislate from the bench and find it “unconstitutional.”

The above statement is simply wrong. Find a different object of your ire.

Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, States cannot discriminate against persons on the basis of their non-resident status, and illegal immigrants are non-residents. The federal government can discriminate, because the Privileges and Immunities Clause, by its express language only applies to the States.

In order for Prop 187 to have been constitutional, it would have also been necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution to define a "citizen" of a State, as a person who is also a "citizen" of the United States. Because, the common law definition of a State citizen, well-established for over 100 years, is: a person who resides in a state with the intention to remain therein permanently.

So, any judge, liberal, conservative or in between, while recognizing that the federal government is free to deport an illegal immigrant at any time for lack of U.S. citizenship status, would be constrained by the U.S. Constitution to instruct State officials to give the immigrant equal treatment to other State citizens, if the immigrant states his/her intention to remain in the State permanently.

That's just the way it is -- so, don't go blaming it on a liberal judiciary, because the judges who made this particular set of rules were likely all dead before you were born -- and they were all almost certainly more conservative than you will ever be.

 

[Ricter]

Lmao, nice.