The real answer to getting rid of illegal aliens

[Carol]

Once you secure a person's status in the US, that means their status is no longer at risk. They can take legal action against an employer for offering sub-minimum wage without fear of deportation, yes? Or for working conditions that do not meet OSHA standards?

That would still create a market demand for illegal workers that are willing for sub-minimum wage that will probably not be whistleblowers out of fear for their status being discovered.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Once you secure a person's status in the US, that means their status is no longer at risk. They can take legal action against an employer for offering sub-minimum wage without fear of deportation, yes? Or for working conditions that do not meet OSHA standards?

That would still create a market demand for illegal workers that are willing for sub-minimum wage that will probably not be whistleblowers out of fear for their status being discovered.

Right now, the community of illegal aliens supports each other. Once a legal avenue is available, it will be in their best interest to ensure that illegal aliens do not find work or refuge. The lifeboat scenario; everyone wants to get on, and will do anything to get that. Once on, they don't want anyone else to get in and swamp the boat.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The basic facts are that the borders need to be secured somehow to protect us (American citizens) from spending our tax dollars (that we cannot afford) on health care education ect., from drug dealers and terrorist.

True. I have said that. Now, if illegal workers no longer need to sneak over the border, you have eliminated the majority of border issues right there.

Drug dealers and terrorists will still sneak across, but now they'll have a much smaller crowd in which to hide. More cops per crook guarding the border, since fewer people are coming over. That's a win-win.

As far as 'health care costs', that has nothing to do with border control. That's a complaint about what illegal workers cost us in health care and other services. And you're right, they do. So if they're legal and paying taxes, they are paying for their services, huh? End of problem. Keeping them illegal is what is making it cost us money for the services they consume.

This is a true threat to our nation,more now than ever before. I have no problem with Mexican people and understand their desire to come here for a better life,but let them do it legally.

Great. Amnesty and a guest worker program that lets all non-criminal workers into the USA will do that.

I do believe the Arizona State Senator knows a hell of of a lot more about what is going on in her own state than some guy in Michigan.

Nice try. I'm hella smarter than she is, and I can prove it any day of the week. She thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and has said so on video. I win. End of discussion.

 

[Archangel M]

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/2061868-Ark-cop-shot-recovering-at-home/

 

[Gary Crawford]

"Nice try. I'm hella smarter than she is, and I can prove it any day of the week. She thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and has said so on video. I win. End of discussion. " Now why did you have to do that? It was a discussion about solving a problem and you had to not only throw out something completely irrelevant, but insult every Christian reading this. I not only agree with her, it is the truth. Very sad you do not believe. I feel very sorry for you and won't waste any more time discussing anything with you. Best wishes and I did say a prayer for you.

 

[elder999]

" Now why did you have to do that? It was a discussion about solving a problem and you had to not only throw out something completely irrelevant, but insult every Christian reading this. I not only agree with her, it is the truth. Very sad you do not believe. I feel very sorry for you and won't waste any more time discussing anything with you. Best wishes and I did say a prayer for you.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't an insult to every Christian reading it-not every Christian believes that the "Earth is 6,000 years old."

Like Bill himself, obviously.....

In any case, it's not "the truth." It's not even what the Bible says.

I mean, there are artifacts-as in "objects made by the hands of man" that are older than that.....I mean, they just discovered an 8,000 year old building in Israel a little while ago....:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/tech/main6083687.shtml

 

[CanuckMA]

"Nice try. I'm hella smarter than she is, and I can prove it any day of the week. She thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and has said so on video. I win. End of discussion. " Now why did you have to do that? It was a discussion about solving a problem and you had to not only throw out something completely irrelevant, but insult every Christian reading this. I not only agree with her, it is the truth. Very sad you do not believe. I feel very sorry for you and won't waste any more time discussing anything with you. Best wishes and I did say a prayer for you.

Oh good grief. While we us that to count our years, it's now 5770, even Orthodox Jews don't hold by that. Rashi, one of the greatest commentators on Torah, does not hold that Genesis is literally 6 24-hour days.

 

[elder999]

Oh good grief. While we us that to count our years, it's now 5770, even Orthodox Jews don't hold by that. Rashi, one of the greatest commentators on Torah, does not hold that Genesis is literally 6 24-hour days.

And, in fact, the very notion that the Genesis creation myth is anything but allegorical is something that arose during medieval times-prior to that, contemporary church fathers wrote-along with most Torah commentary-that it was allegorical.

Believing a literal interpretation of Genesis is literally dark age thinking.

 

[Joab]

Not enough cops. Not enough jails. Not enough political will to do it.

Your right, we don't have enough jails to put illegal aliens in them. I'm not advocating putting illegal aliens in jail, I'm advocating fines so high that companies that profit from hiring illegal aliens will no longer be able to profit from it due to the size of the fines. There is enough space in the jail to put a CEO of a corporation in one whose corporation repeatedly hires illegals over and over and over again.

Notice how well we do stopping illegal drugs from coming into the USA. Notice how well we stopped illegal booze from coming into the country during Prohibition. We (the people) want the benefits of illegal migrant workers, and so they come. It won't work because we don't want it to, we don't have the money, we don't have the cops, and we don't have enough places to put them all if we did.

There certainly is a large number who like the status qou, with the American worker and the illegals getting the short end of the stick as well as the taxpayer. There are even more who are tired of having illegals come to the country, clog up the emergency rooms of hospitals, have ten kids who are automatically American citizens in our public schools, and work for ridiculously low ages. The corporations love the low pay scale and the market that they bring, but there being short sighted, the middle class can't afford the illegals.

Zero chance of occurring.

No, it does not have zero chance of occuring. Tell me why an illegal alien would agree to pay a fine, learne English, than go to the end lof the line to immigrate when he is already here getting his chunk of the American dream? That is what has zero chance of occuring! My idea probably won't happen because it makes to much sense, by making it unprofitable to hire illegal aliens there would soon be no illegal aliens and the problem would disappear. There are vested interests that like the way things are because they are making a lot of money with the way things are going with the taxpayers paying for a lot of it, the American workers being undercut, and the illegals risking and sometimes losing their lives coming here and getting crap wages that are better than what they would get in Mexico but less than they really deserve, with the threat and often the reality of being kicked back to Mexico anytime.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, it does not have zero chance of occuring. Tell me why an illegal alien would agree to pay a fine, learne English, than go to the end lof the line to immigrate when he is already here getting his chunk of the American dream?

He would not have to go to the end of the line to immigrate, he'd have to go to the end of the line to gain citizenship. He'd do it because he would immediately have access to health care insurance (currently illegal for illegal aliens under the new HCR law), he'd be covered under OSHA and other workplace regulations, and he would no longer have to live in a cash-based society, preyed upon by criminals and afraid to report crimes for fear of being arrested and deported. He would no longer have to live in the shadows. That's why.

That is what has zero chance of occuring! My idea probably won't happen because it makes to much sense, by making it unprofitable to hire illegal aliens there would soon be no illegal aliens and the problem would disappear.

It is already illegal to hire illegal aliens. The laws are not being enforced. There is very little chance of them being enforced, for the reasons I have stated. If the laws were enforced, it would not stop the casual labor market, it would only stop the field and factory workers.

There are vested interests that like the way things are because they are making a lot of money with the way things are going with the taxpayers paying for a lot of it, the American workers being undercut, and the illegals risking and sometimes losing their lives coming here and getting crap wages that are better than what they would get in Mexico but less than they really deserve, with the threat and often the reality of being kicked back to Mexico anytime.

Yes, that is correct. And that is also driven by the American citizen, who purchases based on low prices. That is why it will not change.

So the question still remains. Do you want to secure the border? Bitching about why your way won't work isn't helping. An immigration policy that allows for amnesty for the illegal aliens here now and future workers to enter legally will do that. If you want the border secured, that's how you do it. If you do not want the border secured, carry on complaining about how existing law is not being enforced, I guess. It will continue to not be enforced, and the problems will continue.

I like fixing problems. There is a way to fix this one. Swimming upstream against existing desires isn't the way to get this one done.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

He would not have to go to the end of the line to immigrate, he'd have to go to the end of the line to gain citizenship. He'd do it because he would immediately have access to health care insurance (currently illegal for illegal aliens under the new HCR law), he'd be covered under OSHA and other workplace regulations, and he would no longer have to live in a cash-based society, preyed upon by criminals and afraid to report crimes for fear of being arrested and deported. He would no longer have to live in the shadows. That's why.

Yes, that is correct. And that is also driven by the American citizen, who purchases based on low prices. That is why it will not change.

So the question still remains. Do you want to secure the border? Bitching about why your way won't work isn't helping. An immigration policy that allows for amnesty for the illegal aliens here now and future workers to enter legally will do that. If you want the border secured, that's how you do it. If you do not want the border secured, carry on complaining about how existing law is not being enforced, I guess. It will continue to not be enforced, and the problems will continue.

I like fixing problems. There is a way to fix this one. Swimming upstream against existing desires isn't the way to get this one done

And you have still yet to explain the benefit to the U.S. citizen for doing this. You said it would keep prices low, because "we demand it", but your statement above gives lie to that. Also, it still doesn't account for how it would end illegal immigration as there would still be a black market for cheap, illegal immigrant labor.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And so will every other one in the politicians need to attempt to satisfy everyone. Even if they attempt your proposal, there will be things in the legislation that cause it to be utterly screwed up.

I agree with you on this point.

Understood. The fact of the matter is that there is a process to get migrant workers from other countries into the U.S., and not just for agricultural workers. You can argue that it needs to be reformed, but to say that it doesn't exist would be disingenuous.

OK, fair enough. It exists and is not being used by employers due to limitations that make it unattractive for them to pursue.

But, if I read you right, your plan would be to let them in regardless of whether there are jobs for them. Not only that, but they would be allowed to displace U.S. citizens for jobs. Not only that, but be eligible for the same benefits as a U.S. citizen.

Yep. I compete for my job with overseas IT workers every day. Why should a car salesman be different?

However, the vast majority of these workers are as we currently see them; unskilled labor.

As I said in another thread, what would then be the point of being a citizen of the U.S.?

"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." I think I read that somewhere.

Let me answer your question with a question. What would be the point of denying citizenship to others once you have it yourself? Nice club, is it exclusive, or can anybody join? And to those that say they welcome those who follow the rules, I agree. I recommend changing the rules.

Yes, and increasing the pocket books of CEO's and other managers. You make the assumption that these cost saving go into price savings at the market. I don't think that is the case, at least when it comes to large businesses.

Profit rules, of course. And when selling lettuce, low price rules. Unless you have a market that pays more for perceived added value - like organic veggies, etc, lettuce is lettuce and people buy what is cheapest. So yes, low price wins every time in that case, and even large corporations have to move that produce before it spoils.

According to your argument, companies take advantage of illegal immigrants and pay them lower wages than are mandated by State and Federal law. This, in turn, causes the consumer price of the product to be lowered.

Yep.

However, if we have the worker program that you suggest, companies would be forced to pay the State or Federal minimum wage. This in turn, would cause those low prices that you talk about to rise. So, whether they are staffed by U.S. Citizens, or your new legal migrant workers, the consumer price would still rise.

Yep. Although we could work out a 'non-citizen' labor wage, as a suggestion. Or we could accept that prices will rise, but the illegal aliens won't be such a drag on society anymore since they'll be able to buy health insurance and pay into the services they currently receive.

Unless you are suggesting that we pay migrant workers what we now pay illegal immigrants. Either way, your solution has solved nothing.

Solved the border control problem, which I see as numero uno. Created a solution to illegal aliens using services they didn't pay for, numero dos. Lowered crime by giving now-legal aliens the ability to report crimes against them, numero tres. I'm sure there are more.

Yes, but if you prevent them from using illegal immigrant workers in the first place, the problem is solved, and the only price issue that will happen is that of supply and demand.

If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. We can't prevent it. Haven't the will, haven't the money, haven't the cops, haven't the jails.

Has enforcement stopped illegal drugs? Has it stopped prostitution? Did it stop booze trafficking during prohibition? We dont' want it stopped, hence it will not stop. Continuing to propose a solution that can't happen is not a solution.

Can't rightly say. However, just because we had undocumented labor doesn't mean it was illegal. It all depends on when such laws were written.

My point is that there is no 'sudden influx' of illegal alien workers. We've had them since dot.

However, we also have to ask ourselves what is the historical effect of thie illegal immigrant labor. I contend that it has become much worse in the last few decades then before.

I propose a cure for that.

I do not. I demand the lowest price based on the quality of product that I can choose to buy. That is not the same thing. Sometimes I am satisfied with cheap quality, other times not. I want the price to be competitive within the measure of quality that I desire.

Not most people who shop at Wal-Mart, and they are more than you or me.

Yes, and ultimately, when the quality of the service goes down beyond what they are willing to accept, they will no longer procure that service or good, forcing the company to change it's policy.

Very seldom.

But, I look at shipping jobs oversea as another problem, though not entirely unrelated.

But it isn't going to change. So I deal with trying to keep my job using whatever advantages I possess, rather than railing about how unfair it is that my company keeps shipping more and more jobs overseas. I can't change the latter, I might be able to influence the former. Do we want to solve problems, or complain about them?

Soooo, unless they agree with your solution as to how to control the border they must have some ulterior motive based on racism. I don't see it.

When people say their main concern is securing the border, and then dance around and come with a thousand different non-border-related reasons why they would never agree to an amnesty or a meaningful guest worker program, they have another agenda. When they start throwing their fear of people speaking Spanish or their American culture changing and how it bothers them, I begin to perceive what that agenda is. I doubt they look themselves in the mirror and admit they're racists. But you tell me what you call it when people are not really interested in any solution that does not involve everyone who speaks Spanish and has brown skin going home right now?

All of which are valid reasons which do not necessarily have anything to do with racism. These things may be true or not, but it does not necessarily mean that these people believe that they are inherently better then Mexicans, just that there are cultural issues that they don't want in their community.

Xenophobia is akin to racism. Nobody likes change at first, but the USA is a polyglot society. Most of us have ancestors who came here and were segregated for one reason or another by those already here, or who chose to segregate themselves. We're a society based on change. I live in Detroit, which is hugely diverse. From polish-based Hamtramck to largely Middle-Eastern Dearborn, we run the gamut. Spanish-speaking? Dude, I go grocery shopping next to people wearing chadors or yamulkes and speaking every language I ever heard of.

I wouldn't want to import a group of people that believe in the killing of Black people for sport, the rape of women at leisure, or the beating of women when they disrepect their men as part of their culture. That does not mean that I believe they they are inherently "less" than me.

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that Hispanic immigrants not be required to follow US laws. Not even aware of any cultural beliefs they have that would chap most of us.

It's like one of my white co-workers has said: "I would rather live in a community of Black conservatives, than a group of white liberals."

Interesting observation.

Your post refutes the contents of one e-mail. How about these factual statistics.

75% of all outstanding felony warrants in Los Angeles County are for illegal immigrants.

About 90% of hit & runs in my department which are solved were caused by illegal immigrants.

Roughly 75% of all DUI arrests are committed by illegal immigrants.

I answer them as I do the others, untrue. They've been debunked more times than I can remember.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

And when people continue to cling to and repeat false rumors, it leads one to believe certain things about them. Know what I mean?

And though the country may regard the children of illegal immigrants as citizens, we can also argue that the crimes and problems that the problems caused by some of those same children are a result of illegal immigration. If their parents had not come here illegally, then they would not be here to have committed these problems.

Yep. If we never let the Italians in, we'd have no Mafia.

So, although your source states that: "The $2.5 billion figure for Medicaid to such households is quoted accurately, but again, much of this was in benefits for U.S.-born children, who are citizens," they would not cost us even that figure if their parents had not come here illegally. So, illegal immigration is still the source of the problem.

If they're legal and paying taxes, then they are paying into the system they take money from. Like citizens do now.

No they would not. And one reason being is how do you force a legal worker to learn English. Hell, we can barely teach our own citizens proper English.

Competency tests. We can't force citizens to speak English because a) no national law regarding language and b) you can't take away their citizenship for not speaking correctly. With immigrants, you have a stick; no citizenship until they master it to a given degree.

We could, you are correct in pointing out, differentiate their cost versus their contribution. But knowing that doesn't actually solve any problem.

It gives us planning tools, which does allow us to solve problems, and it beats rough guesses, which get blown up 1000% and then repeated in endless hate-filled emails someone insists on posting on various discussion forums. Hehehe.

I think that its not that they / we don't want any migrant workers. But, as I already stated, they should be seasonal and go back to their country of origin after the season. Or, they should integrate, which history is showing that they will not do.

Yeah, it's that some (or most?) don't want ANY migrant workers, period. They keep coming up with more and more minute points of law, obscure references to emails that they read, arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and anything they can think of to defend why they're not really racist, but they still don't want illegal aliens to get amnesty or a blanket alien worker program. It's pretty clear what they want, as I've been saying. I know they get all puffed up and angry when called racists, but I can't think of another word for them when they go to such lengths to find ANY reason why they should be kept out / sent packing.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And you have still yet to explain the benefit to the U.S. citizen for doing this. You said it would keep prices low, because "we demand it", but your statement above gives lie to that. Also, it still doesn't account for how it would end illegal immigration as there would still be a black market for cheap, illegal immigrant labor.

I've already addressed it in posts above. Keep up or take notes.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot the winky thing. ;-)

 

[Cryozombie]

I do believe the Arizona State Senator knows a hell of of a lot more about what is going on in her own state than some guy in Michigan.

Nice try. I'm hella smarter than she is, and I can prove it any day of the week.

Bill, man, I like a lot of what you post, and you have great ideas, but that's just wrong...

Just because you are smarter than her, does not mean you have any real idea of what is going on local to her, 1000's of miles away. I'm considerably smarter than the bartender at the bar I was drinking at last night who thought the note on the Register that said "Close the Windows at night" referred to a computer (and that's a funny story remind me to relate it sometime) but that doesn't mean I know what goes on daily in her bar.

 

[Archangel M]

but that doesn't mean I know what goes on daily in her bar.

Or that you are better at bartending than she is.

 

[Empty Hands]

Just because you are smarter than her, does not mean you have any real idea of what is going on local to her, 1000's of miles away.

It doesn't mean she does, either. She will run with a certain crowd, visit certain places, shop at certain locations, talk to certain people, etc. What she knows about the rest of it will be filtered through the lens of the local news, which may or may not be accurate.

Someone thousands of miles away with the proper research at hand may very well know better.

Case in point: one of the commonly cited concerns fueling this immigration bill is that of rising crime. Yet the stats show that crime has been falling in Arizona for years. Furthermore, the border war is not spilling into even the border towns on the US side, as attested to by local law enforcement. So who knows what is going on better, residents fearful of a nonexistent crime wave, or people far away with the stats at hand?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's like one of my white co-workers has said: "I would rather live in a community of Black conservatives, than a group of white liberals."

I've been thinking about that statement your co-worker said all day. I think it's a racist statement.

If he meant that he preferred the company of conservatives to that of liberals, he could have said that. But he had to put 'black' and 'white' in it. What it appears he is saying is "I prefer the company of white people, but if they are liberal, then I'd prefer the company of black people who are conservative instead."

It's no crime for people to prefer to be around those with whom the most closely identify, so this has had me turning it over and over again in my mind. But when I think of the words your co-worker chose, I can't help but see it as a racist statement. It's a statement of contrast, meant to illustrate how much he prefers the company of conservatives over liberals, but as guideposts, he uses 'white' to denote that which he really likes, and 'black' to denote what he really doesn't like. It's like saying a person would prefer to eat good food, but they'd eat garbage if the good food were cooked by a liberal and the garbage thrown out by a conservative. Contrasts. He likes white people and dislikes black people. He's trying to show how much he prefers the company of conservatives over liberals, but to do that, he's demonstrating the two things he can think of that represent what he loves and what he hates.

I think your co-worker has some issues, and the least of them may be that he or she is a racist.

But it kind of goes with the line of statements people have been making in this thread. They're not racist, but they can imagine no circumstances under which they would tolerate massive Hispanic migration to the USA (except for 'go stand in line', which they of course know won't happen for all the reasons I've given). It's like watching a kid come up with reasons why he won't eat his Brussels sprouts. To hell with logic, he just doesn't like them!

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I've been thinking about that statement your co-worker said all day. I think it's a racist statement.

If he meant that he preferred the company of conservatives to that of liberals, he could have said that. But he had to put 'black' and 'white' in it. What it appears he is saying is "I prefer the company of white people, but if they are liberal, then I'd prefer the company of black people who are conservative instead."

It's no crime for people to prefer to be around those with whom the most closely identify, so this has had me turning it over and over again in my mind. But when I think of the words your co-worker chose, I can't help but see it as a racist statement. It's a statement of contrast, meant to illustrate how much he prefers the company of conservatives over liberals, but as guideposts, he uses 'white' to denote that which he really likes, and 'black' to denote what he really doesn't like. It's like saying a person would prefer to eat good food, but they'd eat garbage if the good food were cooked by a liberal and the garbage thrown out by a conservative. Contrasts. He likes white people and dislikes black people. He's trying to show how much he prefers the company of conservatives over liberals, but to do that, he's demonstrating the two things he can think of that represent what he loves and what he hates.

I think your co-worker has some issues, and the least of them may be that he or she is a racist.

But it kind of goes with the line of statements people have been making in this thread. They're not racist, but they can imagine no circumstances under which they would tolerate massive Hispanic migration to the USA (except for 'go stand in line', which they of course know won't happen for all the reasons I've given). It's like watching a kid come up with reasons why he won't eat his Brussels sprouts. To hell with logic, he just doesn't like them!

if the person is being called a racist because he is bashing liberal ideas then I do not see this comment as being racist at all, but rather a comment about the ideas of liberals...
If a person were just to randomly make this statement and then follow it up with, now make a statement about just on this comment..... you might have a point. but I think you are reading to much into it, and not looking at the circumstances it was said.


It almost seems like you are playing devils advocate on this thread today lol

 

[Bill Mattocks]

if the person is being called a racist because he is bashing liberal ideas then I do not see this comment as being racist at all, but rather a comment about the ideas of liberals...
If a person were just to randomly make this statement and then follow it up with, now make a statement about just on this comment..... you might have a point. but I think you are reading to much into it, and not looking at the circumstances it was said.

Well, that occurred to me, but if so, then why not simply say he preferred the company of conservatives to liberals and leave it at that?

He used the terms 'black' and 'white' because they mean something to him, and I would presume he thought they would mean something to his audience. Why black; why white? They must mean something; so what do they mean? I can't accept that he used the terms for no reason at all.

It almost seems like you are playing devils advocate on this thread today lol

Not intentionally. I get at loggerheads with my conservative brethren over this illegal immigration issue all the time. I have one goal - secure the border. I see a clear route to do that. But it seems many of us don't want to, because when it comes down to brass tacks, they have a different agenda; it's not really about securing our border after all. That kind of stuff bugs me.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

OK, fair enough. It exists and is not being used by employers due to limitations that make it unattractive for them to pursue.

So your proposition is to put the immigrant workers desires first, rather then the employers. I see where you are going with this.

However, the vast majority of these workers are as we currently see them; unskilled labor.

Yep. I compete for my job with overseas IT workers every day. Why should a car salesman be different?

You mean the mechanics, roofers, construction workers, plumbers, landscapers (not mere lawn cutters), business owners, etc. Those "unskilled" laborers.

I see that you're from Michigan. Perhaps you should get out more. Illegal immigrants do more than pick fruit.

As for competition, there wouldn't be. We have a Federal minimum wage, and most States have minimum wages. As you suggest below, we could have a "non-citizen low wage", mandating a maximum that such people could make. A citizen worker would not be allowed to accept a "non-citizen" wage because the employer is forced to pay the Federal / State minimum wage.

"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." I think I read that somewhere.

There is a difference between making individual citizens, as meant in the quote above, and letting people come here as suits there convienence for monetary profit.

Let me answer your question with a question. What would be the point of denying citizenship to others once you have it yourself? Nice club, is it exclusive, or can anybody join? And to those that say they welcome those who follow the rules, I agree. I recommend changing the rules.

See above. It's not about denying everyone citizenship. No one has ever made that point. But I don't have a problem with having criteria. Apparently you have none.

Yep. Although we could work out a 'non-citizen' labor wage, as a suggestion.

And this is my other problem. What you are now arguing is a essentially a new slave class. At the very least, you are arguing for a legal caste system.

Or we could accept that prices will rise, but the illegal aliens won't be such a drag on society anymore since they'll be able to buy health insurance and pay into the services they currently receive.

Yes, they will be. From where will they get their health insurance? From government subsidies. Hence, they will continue to be a drag on society. What services will they receive that they could actually pay for, given that you are also making the suggestion of a "non-citizen" low wage.

Even if we accept that prices will rise, people will only pay so much for a given product. Do you really think that people will pay $8 for a head of lettuce, regardless of whether that lettuce is picked by a legal worker or immigrant. I posit to you that some prices will still be acceptable on an individual basis, but the composite effect would be devastating. Are you trying to destroy the U.S., or solve the problem.

Solved the border control problem, which I see as numero uno.

Yes, if you believe that the sole problem is merely people coming to this country illegally. But that is not the sole problem. It is the underlying root cause of the many other problems which are what really concern people.

No one says, "Oh, we just shouldn't have illegal immigrants here just because they are illegal." The complaint is the effect that those illegal immigrants are having. And that, you have not solved.

Created a solution to illegal aliens using services they didn't pay for, numero dos.

No, you didn't, because you haven't actually given a way for people to pay for those services. In fact, your suggestion makes the problem worse. Under your "solution", those who are now illegal and made citizens would have access to services which they don't currently have. And yet, they would still have no way to pay for them. Most would not even make enough to be taxed, especially if we implement your "solution" of a "non-citizen low wage". Hence, they would get more services, but still don't pay anything commesurate into the system.

Your solution also supposes that if they were allowed to get taxable jobs, that somehow that would create those jobs for them to get. How many gardeners do we need? Now many fruit pickers do we need? We're somehow going to magically have more because we have opened the floodgate to even more eligible workers? I don't think so.

And even if they got all the jobs, those who are citizens would be out of a job and take services which they couldn't pay for. Hell, some non-citizens, because they can't get work in there own country, and those countries typically don't offer government mandated services, would then come here because they could get more by not working here then they could get by not working there.

Your solution has not only not solved the problem, but actually excacerbated it.

Lowered crime by giving now-legal aliens the ability to report crimes against them, numero tres. I'm sure there are more.

I am in law enforcement. In my experience (what is yours in this, by the way, other then what you heard on the news) illegals have no problems with reporting crime. We take countless reports from them.

And, I'm assuming here, considering that you have little experience with the actual workings of law enforcement, such people now reporting crimes would actually "cause crime to go up". Alot of crimes go unreported, and not just from illegals. If the reason they chose not to report them was because of their legal status, and they now reported them, crime statistics would actually rise.

What you're also assuming here is that law enforcement would actually be able to solve those crimes. In most crimes, there is very little suspect information, and what is given are vague physically descriptions given by victims. And can be accounted for by experts in the field, most descriptions given usually have inaccuracies. So, just because those crimes are reported doesn't mean that crimes would be solved and go down.

If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. We can't prevent it. Haven't the will, haven't the money, haven't the cops, haven't the jails.

Haven't the will, granted.

But what I suggest would not cost all that much to have a significant impact, nor would it require gobs of law enforcement. All you have to do is make it so painful for some high profile people in companies that everyone else would be too fearful to do so because of the consequences. Simple enough.

Has enforcement stopped illegal drugs?

Because we don't take it seriously.

Has it stopped prostitution?

Because we don't take it seriously.

Did it stop booze trafficking during prohibition?

Because you physically can't control the manufacture of alcohol.

We dont' want it stopped, hence it will not stop. Continuing to propose a solution that can't happen is not a solution.

Contining to propose a solution that isn't an acutal solution isn't a solution either.

I propose a cure for that.

Like a lot of drugs, your cure is worse then the acutal disease.

Not most people who shop at Wal-Mart, and they are more than you or me.

I would disagree. But here we fall into more personal opinion, with no clear factual basis, so I'll leave it alone.

But it isn't going to change. So I deal with trying to keep my job using whatever advantages I possess, rather than railing about how unfair it is that my company keeps shipping more and more jobs overseas. I can't change the latter, I might be able to influence the former. Do we want to solve problems, or complain about them?

This whole statment is pre-supposed that your solution would actually solve something, which I have shown that it won't.

When people say their main concern is securing the border, and then dance around and come with a thousand different non-border-related reasons why they would never agree to an amnesty or a meaningful guest worker program, they have another agenda. When they start throwing their fear of people speaking Spanish or their American culture changing and how it bothers them, I begin to perceive what that agenda is. I doubt they look themselves in the mirror and admit they're racists. But you tell me what you call it when people are not really interested in any solution that does not involve everyone who speaks Spanish and has brown skin going home right now?

This is complete obfuscation. You know that illegals cause a measureable effect on the economy and standard of living. It is not there mere presence which is unpalatable. No one is making the argument that they don't want Mexicans here simply because they are Mexican. When they give you the reason, you call it "dancing". And when they don't agree with your solution, it must be because of racism. That is just twisted, I hesitate to call it, logic.

It is the net effect of their presence, which is measureable to some extent, however we just refuse to even try to measure it.

Xenophobia is akin to racism. Nobody likes change at first, but the USA is a polyglot society. Most of us have ancestors who came here and were segregated for one reason or another by those already here, or who chose to segregate themselves. We're a society based on change. I live in Detroit, which is hugely diverse. From polish-based Hamtramck to largely Middle-Eastern Dearborn, we run the gamut. Spanish-speaking? Dude, I go grocery shopping next to people wearing chadors or yamulkes and speaking every language I ever heard of.

It is not the change people have a problem with. Most Americans have show a willingness to accept different aspects of various cultures. But what is wrong with Americans wanting their own culture and sence of identity? You obviously think that something is wrong with it.

Hell, we celebrate days that are significant in Mexican history which they don't even celebrate in Mexico!!! We have Juneteenth, St. Patrick's Day, Hanukkah, Cinco De Mayo, etc. And yet somehow we're racist. Give me a break.

What people don't want is this turning into Mexico. Why? Because we see what Mexico has to offer. Hell, that's why they're coming here, because there are significant aspects which even they don't like!

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that Hispanic immigrants not be required to follow US laws. Not even aware of any cultural beliefs they have that would chap most of us.

And because you don't have those beliefs, everyone who does not see cultural things as you do is a racist. Please! That is arrogance of the highest order.

Interesting observation.

Yeah, you know that whole freedom of association thing that we say we like to have in the U.S.

I answer them as I do the others, untrue. They've been debunked more times than I can remember.

Your source did not address what I said in any way. For instance, I said:
"75% of all outstanding felony warrants in Los Angeles County are for illegal immigrants."

Your source addresses "75% of the people on the Most Wanted List in Los Angeles are illegal aliens." I said nothing of the sort. I did not specify murder warrants either, as your source points out.

I said: About 90% of hit & runs in my department which are solved were caused by illegal immigrants.

1. Your source does not address this.

2. Even if it did, I would trust the Traffic Investigator to whom I spoke with and compiles Department statistics before I trusted even Snopes, unless they could prove that he is provided intentional falsehoods.

3. You are calling into a lie something for which you can have no facts in evidence to support your position. That goes to show your credibility in other issue as well, in my opinion.

I said: Roughly 75% of all DUI arrests are committed by illegal immigrants.

You could be partially right. I did fail to say "in my Department". Once again, I would take the word of my Departments traffic investigator over even Snopes. You could not even possibly refute these stats unless you called and he actually told you different. Even then, I would posit that the statistics have changed, not that they never existed.

Of course, I have provided no source other then stats given to me by a member of my Department. You can choose to believe or not believe them. But considering his fiance is the child of illegal immigrants, I would wonder what his motive would be.

Yep. If we never let the Italians in, we'd have no Mafia.

But we let them in. We can be blamed. We didn't "let" the Mexicans illegal immigrants into this country.

If they're legal and paying taxes, then they are paying into the system they take money from. Like citizens do now.

And as I've shown, they wouldn't pay taxes based on your hypothesis and proposal.

Competency tests. We can't force citizens to speak English because a) no national law regarding language and b) you can't take away their citizenship for not speaking correctly. With immigrants, you have a stick; no citizenship until they master it to a given degree.

But as you have argued above, there would be effectively no difference between a citizen and non-citizen. So what would the carrot be, since they would have all the rights and privileges of a citizen anyway? Answer: there wouldn't be, so there would be no incentive for them to learn English.

It gives us planning tools, which does allow us to solve problems, and it beats rough guesses, which get blown up 1000% and then repeated in endless hate-filled emails someone insists on posting on various discussion forums. Hehehe.

You certainly aren't refering to me, because I have never read said e-mail.

Yeah, it's that some (or most?) don't want ANY migrant workers, period.

Ok, so what.

They keep coming up with more and more minute points of law, obscure references to emails that they read, arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and anything they can think of to defend why they're not really racist, but they still don't want illegal aliens to get amnesty or a blanket alien worker program. It's pretty clear what they want, as I've been saying. I know they get all puffed up and angry when called racists, but I can't think of another word for them when they go to such lengths to find ANY reason why they should be kept out / sent packing.

So rather then attacking the argument, you chose instead to attack the person. Good strategy. Just like the modern liberal. Call anything you don't like hate-filled so that they can be emotionally discounted.

I've already addressed it in posts above. Keep up or take notes.

You mean the post you made after I said that you didn't address it...