Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
It's cutting the door kicking in favor of a better approach. Or so the theory goes. Which method actually has more effect, time will tell.
One of you will end up here next!
Saying that I want a delayed response is such a misrepresentation of what I was advocating. I wanted an incremental response because I thought there were too many economic consequences to a comprehensive response. I decided I was wrong about that, and changed my mind. But, I never wanted a delayed response.... you want a delayed response.
Let me help you think this through:Actually it is. They will leave and go home. Observe.
Many of the cars that once stopped in the Home Depot parking lot to pick up day laborers to hang drywall or do landscaping now just drive on by.
Arizona's sweeping immigration bill allows police to arrest illegal immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them. It won't take effect until summer but it is already having an effect on the state's underground economy.
"Nobody wants to pick us up," Julio Loyola Diaz says in Spanish as he and dozens of other men wait under the shade of palo verde trees and lean against a low brick wall outside the east Phoenix home improvement store.
Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.
Illegal Immigrants Leaving Arizona Over New Law - CBS News
See what happens when action is taken and people don't live in the world of theory like you do?
Where do you suppose those people are going?
Where do you suppose they will go when there are no more jobs in the U.S. for them?
As economically poor individuals, what do you suppose they will do once they arrive back in Mexico?
Do you think anyone in Mexico will be interested in making use of these people?
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I am sure you think that's what I was saying, but it clearly is not. Again, you see what you want to see.
hahaha What a defeatist attitude you have. We can't get rid of their jobs because then the drug cartels will employ them and we can't deport them because its mean.
I will help tutor you in reading comprehension: Here are some hints - I did say that some of them would be willing to work for the cartels. I didn't say that we shouldn't proceed with immediate, comprehensive illegal immigrant reform and law enforcement. In fact, I said the opposite. So, why do you suppose I brought up the issue about the cartels and such? Aww, hell, I can't trust you to come up with a sensible answer, so I'll just give it to you: Because I thought it should be something we need to be prepared for and do something about.
Oh please, you are unbelievable. If it is so ridiculous, you should be able to come up with an article that says they have all the employees they could ever wish for.I'll tell you what. You find an article talking about the employee problems within the Cartels and I'll wait laughing here while you try and find something to back up your rediculus claim.
Yes, I did. I addressed it by promoting a solution to neutralize it. Right after I stated that we should still go ahead and proceed with effective immigration law enforcement.No you didn't. And you never addressed how we would combat the voilence.
Perhaps. However, they don't have to ship them through the border, and shipping them by plane and sea, although higher, may not be a 'hell of lot' higher.I know drugs would be a hell of lot higher in cost if the borders were secure.
That is completely untrue. Why would they care if they were deported when there are no jobs here for them other than drug industry jobs?I know that the illegals employed to bring the drugs would be fewer and far between if the chance they would be deported rose sharply.
Why spend all that money getting the price to go up? Just legalize them. Then take over the production and distribution, temporarily. Privatize the industry later if you want.The way you make it harder is to control the flow better. Raise the price. Make it harder to bring in.
We have had aggressive drug interdiction efforts before. I see no reason to begin them again.
No, it isn't.Unfettered access from the border is the first problem.This is the first problem. The two problems are separate and don't even need to be related. Legalization would uncouple them.Dealing with addiction is the second.
Drugs are not water and addiction rehabilitation is not the same as 'bailing out water'. Here is why: With a dam you have an actual hope of stemming the flow of water once the dam is repaired. Over the long history of the "drug war", I have seen zero evidence that attempts at stemming the flow of drugs into the country has ever actually succeeded in significantly reducing the flow of drugs. We keep trying, partly because people think drugs are like water and interdiction is like building a dam. But, I really don't want to keep learning the lesson that they are not not the same. Over and over. Here's a bonus question for ya': What is the definition of insanity?Easy analogy for you. If there's a hole in the dam do you repair it fist or start bailing out the water?
Sorry, but your straw man has too many holes, and his stuffing keeps falling out. You're not very good at this are you? If you want to keep putting words in my mouth, you'll have to provide evidence. When did I say that I wanted to delay enforcement of immigration laws because of potential problems with strengthening the power of drug cartels? When did I say that I want to think about it while waiting to take action?
But you and your defeatest attitude don't want to plug the hole, you want to look around at the water coming in and think about it.
Sorry, we can't wait for you.
Again, I had very specific reasons for wanting to ramp up enforcement, but became differently convinced about those issues. The whole drug thing is not those reasons and I have never said I want to delay, measure, or ramp up enforcement due to this aspect. I specifically stated, when I first voiced the concerns about drug distribution issues, that despite these reservations, I believe that effective enforcement should begin immediately and aggressively. I specifically stated this because I wanted to voice the concerns, but avoid a drawn out idiotic discussion trying to explain that I didn't mention them as a point on which to oppose enforcement, and get on with discussing possible solutions. But, it really was giving you too much credit, I guess.
Yes, here I am explaining THAT I DON'T CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL DRUG DISTRIBUTION PROBLEMS TO BE A REASON TO DELAY, OR IN ANY WAY DILUTE IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND AT NO POINT DID I EVER TAKE THAT VIEWPOINT.
Sorry to shout, but I am thinking it might help you to hear me.
You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.
Will that happen? Hard to say, but at this points that's as likely as this working and sending them back voluntarily because of "supply and demand". Yet people are reacting to this as if its an unquestioanble truth that Obama is actually doing anything to the level where such a principle will work.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Going after employers for breaking the law is a better way than resorting to police state tactics. You want to fix a problem, go after the source. When illegals cant find work they will self deport.
Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.
Switching gears for a sec...
Do any of you think "big business" is in favor of illegal workers?
Last edited by ric27; 07-12-10 at 09:33 AM.
I think big FARM business is in favor of illegals. "Big Business," as in the definition I personally would ascribe to it, really shouldn't favor them because, in most cases, it would make no difference. They have labor contracts that spell out what workers get paid, so there'd be no advantage there. And what advantage would they have to hire non-English-speaking workers?
Entrepreneurs and small businesses probably favor them because they can pay them less. And, better yet, can pay them off the books so they avoid payroll taxes. Just figuring FICA, they'd save, what? 7% of their salary? No health insurance, no unemployment taxes. But only small businesses can get away with that. Big businesses would never take that risk, even if they weren't hog-tied by union contracts.
Thank you, Quazi!
Big business is NOT in favor of illegal workers. Its small business that is in favor of it
Its a way of using the American public's antipathy towards large Corps/big business. The media is mostly responsible in using this cheap arsed media ploy to create a sense of social conflict
The most offending companies are small and privately owned. Local construction contractors come to mind.