Support NeoGAF

[ManaByte]

your point...

You still haven't made your point, aside from your post where it looked like you supported giving people in the country illegally drivers licenses.

 

[Sumidor]

Why even have border patrols, if you're gonna give them the same rights as legal citizens, once they cross the border? And once they cross, I bet less than 5% of them get shipped back. I mean shit.. it's like a game, once you get past the border, you're rewarded with the same things legal citizens have.

 

[ManaByte]

Why even have border patrols, if you're gonna give them the same rights as legal citizens, once they cross the border? And once they cross, I bet less than 5% of them get shipped back. I mean shit.. it's like a game, once you get past the border, you're rewarded with the same things legal citizens have.

Yup and when you try to ship them back, people get all pissed off.

 

[BruceWayne]

How 'bout the fact that out of state citizens have to pay 3x the normal tuition when they come to study in californian college and university.
But there is a bill that allows illegal immigrant's children to pay no tuition if they studied in californian high school for 3 years.

It won't be long before a bill is passed to put mandatory water coolers every one mile in Arizona desert so that the illegal immigrants crossing the desert won't dehydrate.

 

[vangace]

You still haven't made your point, aside from your post where it looked like you supported giving people in the country illegally drivers licenses.

Legal Hispanics were the ones who spearheaded Anorld's election to governship, they were very crucial because a majority of them voted for him. For him to continue vetoing bills that have been forwad so far without coming with an alternative solution to this problem is eroding that support he had from hispanics. This could potentially cost him the next election.

As for my point, i am taking a middle ground. Since there are about 2million of these illegal aliens in cali and most them contribute immensely to our local economy. Why not give them some kind of identification since they drive without licenses anyway. That is not say give them greencards or anything but that since we know they are here and we are not going to deport them why not give them some form of identification. The reason why these people don't get deported is because california lawmakers know that without these Mexicans there will be no one to work in the hotels, work in the fields and all those crappy jobs...

 

[ManaByte]

Legal Hispanics were the ones who spearheaded Anorld's election to governship, they were very crucial because a majority of them voted for him. For him to continue vetoing bills that have been forwad so far without coming with an alternative solution to this problem is eroding that support he had from hispanics. This could potentially cost him the next election.

As for my point, i am taking a middle ground. Since there are about 2million of these illegal aliens in cali and most them contribute immensely to our local economy. Why not give them some kind of identification since they drive without licenses anyway. That is not say give them greencards or anything but that since we know they are here and we are not going to deport them why not give them some form of identification. The reason why these people don't get deported is because california lawmakers know that without these Mexicans there will be no one to work in the hotels, work in the fields and all those crappy jobs...

1. Vetoing a bill that would've given drivers licenses to illegal aliens in California has absolutely NOTHING to do with those who are in the country legally.

2. They do not get IDs because THEY ARE IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Instead of giving them any sort of ID, they should be thrown into a truck, driven down to Otay Mesa or San Ysidro and dumped on their side of the border. They are BREAKING THE LAW being in the country ILLEGALLY and should be treated as so.

 

[Sumidor]

The reason why these people don't get deported is because california lawmakers know that without these Mexicans there will be no one to work in the hotels, work in the fields and all those crappy jobs...

No.. even if they all left, people would still work there, they just wouldn't work for the same amount of money, thus the people employing them, wouldn't make as much from giving them crappy wages.

And that's my point, if these lawmakers really don't care, which I bet they don't, just cancel border patrols. Save the money, build a big ass moat with sharks and crap, and lets see how many of them make it through.

 

[mrklaw]

Look at this way, there are thousands of them already driving on the LA roads and if one them hits your car you are practically fucked up because the illegal driver cannot be identified and he does not have insurance. If you are not going to deport them at least have a mechanism to identify and make them liable, some ideas that have been brought up was to give them drivers licences that have a marker. This idea is opposed by many but shit at least do something about it. Lets face it, these people are not going anywhere so you might as well do something.

At this point i am really starting to get ticked off by Anorld, most of the who voted for him were Hispanic and he now turning on them. Second he has voted so many bills that would relived the ever increasing education expenses(i am in colllege at CSUN).

OK, lets just tell them thats its OK they are illegal, have a drivers license.

Its one thing to turn a blind eye to the situation (for whatever political or economic reason), but another to reinforce peoples perceived right to belong, when clearly they don't.

Whether they stay or not, they are still 'illegal'. Providing them with government sanctioned pieces of paper is simply justifying their illegal stay, and quite likely reducing the barriers to others crossing the border (oh, I'll get a drivers license/health care/etc, maybe its not so bad)

 

[Loki]

Legal Hispanics were the ones who spearheaded Anorld's election to governship, they were very crucial because a majority of them voted for him. For him to continue vetoing bills that have been forwad so far without coming with an alternative solution to this problem is eroding that support he had from hispanics. This could potentially cost him the next election.

As for my point, i am taking a middle ground. Since there are about 2million of these illegal aliens in cali and most them contribute immensely to our local economy. Why not give them some kind of identification since they drive without licenses anyway. That is not say give them greencards or anything but that since we know they are here and we are not going to deport them why not give them some form of identification. The reason why these people don't get deported is because california lawmakers know that without these Mexicans there will be no one to work in the hotels, work in the fields and all those crappy jobs...

This is the biggest piece of BS reasoning EVER, and I'll be happy to tell you why:


You point out that Ahnuld received a lot of support from legal Hispanic citizens in the election, and is now "turning his back on them". Somebody mentions that if they (a Hispanic person) are legally here, they can qualify for a driver's license. You respond that "not all Hispanics are illegals" (no shit, really?). It seems to me that you have a bit of a logical error going on here. First off, if legal Hispanic voters helped to get him elected, then he'd be silly to ignore the concerns of legal Hispanic citizens/residents after he was elected (according to current political practice-- I believe a politician should do what's right, not just what would further the ends of those empowering him, but that's another issue). Yet you then pull a bait-and-switch and implicitly assert that, somehow, illegal Hispanics are the ones who carried him to his election. If that's not what you're saying, then the only other option is to assume that you're admitting that legal Hispanic voters are supportive of the steady stream of illegals entering the country, and would actually vote in keeping with that belief, however misguided. Sorry, but I'm not a big believer in people voting to further "hispanic interests" (or any other ethnic/political group's interests) to the detriment of the majority of society, particularly when they exact an enormous financial toll and are committing an illegal act (there's that pesky word again). Quite honestly, if the majority of legal Hispanic voters feel that illegal immigrants should be given more rights than they currently (indefensibly) have, then I'd tell them to take a flying leap off a cliff, same as I would anybody else who behaved in such a manner regarding any other issue of similar gravity and similarly dubious moral character.


So are you saying that legal Hispanic voters desire to further the aims of illegal immigrants? If so, then they're all wrong, and they're all idiots who should not be listened to at all, sorry to say. There really are no two ways about this issue.

and most them contribute immensely to our local economy

Patently false. They are a disproportionate net drain on our economy, actually (to the tune of $10B+ per annum), as concluded by the CIS report I linked to on the first page. Entire sectors of the Californian economy are in danger of insolvency because of illegal aliens, from hospitals, to the public schools, to government benefit programs (yes, illegals receive benefits-- riddle me that). For you to just keep repeating the same tired claims is the height of foolishness. You are wrong, and will continue to be wrong so long as you adhere to such a biased and illogical mentality.


I still can't get over what you're suggesting about Hispanic voters, actually (which I don't necessarily believe, but if you insist...). That they would put some nationalistic or ethnic allegiance before their duty as citizens to support those causes that would further America's ends, and make life better for Americans (including themselves), and would support something so flagrantly illegal and financially ruinous (illegal immigration), is just horribly wrong. Anybody who thinks that way (not that I believe you, mind you, but I'm sure there are some) deserves a swift kick in the nuts, yourself included.


Also, amnesty-- something that's often floated around by those with vested interests (see: illegal immigrant groups and Republicans)-- is not the answer. From the CIS report:

If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

So what's the solution? Like I said, deportation might be prohibitively expensive up front (which still hasn't been proven to me- people just like to repeat this for some reason), but considering that we lose $10B+ per year to illegals, it would very quickly pay for itself. Do you know that for $10B, you could hire nearly 250,000 police officers at $40K per year (surely lots of unemployed Americans, and those making considerably LESS than $40K per year would jump at the opportunity to fill those spots) and station them at the border? Yeah, that was a real difficult solution to come up with-- took me all of, oh, 5 seconds. Think that wouldn't stop the problem? Think again.


Unfortunately, something so simple that would do so much will NEVER be done, given the current political climate on both sides (Dem and Rep), but it should be. The current situation is a joke and a tragedy.

 

[Cimarron]

IAWTP *claps*


I mean this is obviously a very sensitive issue for a lot of folks but.... illegal is illegal. Being in this country legally should mean something. And as speaking as somone from a immigrant family I believe that people should just follow the legal channels. My family did it. Why should other's reap the benefits the same way illegally.

 

[DarienA]

I mean this is obviously a very sensitive issue for a lot of folks but.... illegal is illegal. Being in this country legally should mean something. And as speaking as somone from a immigrant family I believe that people should just follow the legal channels. My family did it. Why should other's reap the benefits the same way illegally.

Serious it's like some people are saying... oh you're here illegally... but since you are what the hell we'll give you this benefit.... then later on after another group bitches we'll give you this benefit... then another... another... pretty soon hey I'm an illegal alien with the full rights of a regular citizen! woo hoo!

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Here's an idea why don't we start arresting all those people that pick up mexicans from infront of Home Depot and Lowes for starters. They are not coming here to work for the pleasure of working for Americans. Why don't we start arresting the people paying them. Maybe if you stop the flow of money you will stop the incentive for them to come over.


-Just a thought.

 

[Banjo Tango]

So what's the solution? Like I said, deportation might be prohibitively expensive up front (which still hasn't been proven to me- people just like to repeat this for some reason), but considering that we lose $10B+ per year to illegals, it would very quickly pay for itself. Do you know that for $10B, you could hire nearly 250,000 police officers at $40K per year (surely lots of unemployed Americans, and those making considerably LESS than $40K per year would jump at the opportunity to fill those spots) and station them at the border? Yeah, that was a real difficult solution to come up with-- took me all of, oh, 5 seconds. Think that wouldn't stop the problem? Think again.


Unfortunately, something so simple that would do so much will NEVER be done, given the current political climate on both sides (Dem and Rep), but it should be. The current situation is a joke and a tragedy.

Something so simple? If there was a forceful effort to "round up and deport" the illegal aliens from this country, you would be facing riots, and not just from the aliens themselves.

And imagine the kinds of people you would get answering the call to join a "deportation task force" or however you want to label it. I'm not even saying the majority of them would be racist, but you'd have enough motivated by hate that you'd couldn't do it "cleanly"; and thats' going to touch off more dissent. Even while you trained such a force, you'd be overburdening the existing police force with whatever shit-fest arises when people hear about this now-forming legion of skull-crackers.

Speaking of training, you're going to be spending a lot more than $10 billion to create this force... it's not just salary, you have to deal with training, equipment, etc.

Not to mention the diplomatic fallout with Mexico. And despite Bush's claims to the contrary, our economy and well-being does rely on other nations (Mexico in particular).

If you really want to do something about it, I agree with Tommie Hu$tle; go after the ones hiring the immigrants. They're much easier to spot and do something about. But ultimately, something needs to be done to improve the situation in Mexico. How much of that falls on our shoulders... I have no idea.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

If you remove the financial incentive by charging not only stiff fines but, prison time for those convicted of hiring illegals then you would shore up 70% of the problem. Start treating the real criminals like criminals.

 

[DarienA]

If you remove the financial incentive by charging not only stiff fines but, prison time for those convicted of hiring illegals then you would shore up 70% of the problem. Start treating the real criminals like criminals.

I think 70% is too high a percentage, and it still doesn't resolve the issue of the fact that the illegal immigrants that are already here are here in LARGE numbers... and not all of them work through these daily pick up on the site jobs.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Daily pickup sites is just an example. Most of the illegals are here for money, American money that American business owners pay that aren't subject to payroll tax and the business onwer can write off as an expense getting a tax deduction on their taxes. If you pull that rug from under the cash cow that entices them to come over then most wouldn't.

 

[Banjo Tango]

Daily pickup sites is just an example. Most of the illegals are here for money, American money that American business owners pay that aren't subject to payroll tax and the business onwer can write off as an expense getting a tax deduction on their taxes. If you pull that rug from under the cash cow that entices them to come over then most wouldn't.

Not to mention, these employers give them no benefits and can work them under very poor conditions... and if the workers get injured on the job, it falls to the taxpayers to pick up the emergency room tab (one way or another).

 

[DarienA]

Daily pickup sites is just an example. Most of the illegals are here for money, American money that American business owners pay that aren't subject to payroll tax and the business onwer can write off as an expense getting a tax deduction on their taxes. If you pull that rug from under the cash cow that entices them to come over then most wouldn't.

Not to mention, these employers give them no benefits and can work them under very poor conditions... and if the workers get injured on the job, it falls to the taxpayers to pick up the emergency room tab (one way or another).

Don't get me wrong I agree with both of these points... however that simply stops the flow of those continuing to come in. That IMO doesn't address what to do about those already here.

 

[Banjo Tango]

Don't get me wrong I agree with both of these points... however that simply stops the flow of those continuing to come in. That IMO doesn't address what to do about those already here.

If you effectively cracked down on the practice of hiring illegal immigrants, it seems it would reverse the flow... why be up here (in many cases, apart from your family) if you're not getting paid?

But I think absorbing the existing population of illegal immigrants is less of a problem once the influx stops than, say, mass deportation.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

You all seem to be arguing that there is only two types of immigrants Legal and Illegal. There are people that came into the country legally, their status expired and are still here, thus deemed "illegal".

When you take into account that immigration proceses can take years upon years you can see that there are children here "illegally"(through no fault of their own) but are so far integrated into this society that going back to their respective countries would be devastating. If you were brought here at 5 yrs or so, and your parent's immigration process has taken 10 yrs(yes, some processes take that long), you have a 15 yr old in the middle of high schooling, pretty much Americanized. Fifteen years old, can't work, can't drive, very likely knows more english that they do their respective language, very well could be an assest to society. This is what the uproar is about, not the border jumpers.

 

[sonatinas]

Mexico's president, Fox, wants an open border between USA and Mexico. The problem with this is that there will be a massive surge of immigrants in the USA all competing for the same low paying jobs. Now, i am not against immigration, but there has to be a limit. Also, Fox is not advocating an open border down south, just with USA. This should clearly give the people of Mexico a reason to be upset. Fox is basically saying," Citizens, I am a terrible president, I can't do anything, please leave my country so I do not have to bother with it because i have to continue with my bloated bureaucracy here in Mexico."

The tax burden on people who pay taxes will be enormous, unless we revolutionize the tax system.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Mexico's president, Fox, wants an open border between USA and Mexico. The problem with this is that there will be a massive surge of immigrants in the USA all competing for the same low paying jobs. Now, i am not against immigration, but there has to be a limit. Also, Fox is not advocating an open border down south, just with USA. This should clearly give the people of Mexico a reason to be upset. Fox is basically saying," Citizens, I am a terrible president, I can't do anything, please leave my country so I do not have to bother with it because i have to continue with my bloated bureaucracy here in Mexico."

The tax burden on people who pay taxes will be enormous, unless we revolutionize the tax system.

Actaully millions pour back into Mexico because of the illegal workers. I'm all for open borders with Mexico and Canada that should solve the problem.

 

[Banjo Tango]

I agree; this whole "illegal / legal" thing isn't a black and white issue.

(Edit - in response to Muncheese)

 

[ManaByte]

Something so simple? If there was a forceful effort to "round up and deport" the illegal aliens from this country, you would be facing riots, and not just from the aliens themselves.

Yes, the idiotic people who support illegal aliens breaking the law would riot and the rest of the country would first laugh and then want them deported for being so stupid.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Yes, the idiotic people who support illegal aliens breaking the law would riot and the rest of the country would first laugh and then want them deported for being so stupid.

Where is your ire for leagl citizens hiring illegal aliens?

 

[ManaByte]

Where is your ire for leagl citizens hiring illegal aliens?

See Loki's post.

They are in the country ILLEGALLY.

 

[vangace]

You respond that "not all Hispanics are illegals" (no shit, really?). It seems to me that you have a bit of a logical error going on here. First off, if legal Hispanic voters helped to get him elected, then he'd be silly to ignore the concerns of legal Hispanic citizens/residents after he was elected (according to current political practice-- I believe a politician should do what's right, not just what would further the ends of those empowering him, but that's another issue). Yet you then pull a bait-and-switch and implicitly assert that, somehow, illegal Hispanics are the ones who carried him to his election

You are missing my point or maybe i didn't explain it clearly. Legal Hispanics will support any bill that will better the lives of illegal Hispanics for the simple reason that they are the same people and most of them are related. So if Anorld does anything that adversely affect the lives of the illegals(hispanics), he will loose support from the legal Hispanics.

And yes, most Hispanics in California are citizens of this country and in 10 years they will be the majority thus any politician will have to dance to their tune. The main reason why Hispanics voted for the Anorld in the first place was that he promised them he would he would consider giving the illegals some kind of identification which (listen carefully) does not mean endorsing illegal immigration nor does it enhance the chances of illegas becoming legals.

Anorld will not win the next election without the support of the Hispanics and that is a fact. Therefore he needs to find a way to make piece with the Hispanic community because he is already started on the wrong foot.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

See Loki's post.

They are in the country ILLEGALLY.

So you have no problem with companies, business, and individuals who hire these illegals. Just checking.

 

[vangace]

See Loki's post.

They are in the country ILLEGALLY.

no one is disputing that, but the fact is there are more than 2million of them here in california and increasing. Our government will not deport them, imagine a situation 10 -15 years from now when there will be 10million illegal immigrants in california, what will you do then??

 

[levious]

Yes, the idiotic people who support illegal aliens breaking the law would riot and the rest of the country would first laugh and then want them deported for being so stupid.

Exercising one's right to free expression and feeling compassion for a group of individuals is grounds for deportation? You're totally batshit insane I'd say.

 

[vangace]

Exercising one's right to free expression and feeling compassion for a group of individuals is grounds for deportation? You're totally batshit insane I'd say.

I bet he does not live in California

 

[ManaByte]

Exercising one's right to free expression and feeling compassion for a group of individuals is grounds for deportation?

People who break the law by illegally sneaking/smuggle themselves into the country really don't deserve such compassion.

You can try to spin it all you want, but the fact remains that they are here illegally and should be sent back, no matter how many are here.

I bet he does not live in California

I live in San Diego, so shut the fuck up.

 

[vangace]

People who break the law by illegally sneaking/smuggle themselves into the country really don't deserve such compassion.

You can try to spin it all you want, but the fact remains that they are here illegally and should be sent back, no matter how many are here.



I live in San Diego, so shut the fuck up.

So sad...

 

[levious]

People who break the law by illegally sneaking/smuggle themselves into the country really don't deserve such compassion.

You can try to spin it all you want, but the fact remains that they are here illegally and should be sent back, no matter how many are here.

My intention is not to spin it at all. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of "they're here illegally, they should be sent back." I'd like to see a more open border policy, or at the very least, one which treats all potential immigrants equally, if you think we do you're naive.

I just have issues with your intense animosity towards them and your idea that anyone who supports them as a group deserves to be deported themselves.

 

[ManaByte]

So sad...

What's sad is that everyone ignored Loki's post. He hit the nail on the head right there.

 

[Saint Cornelius]

Hey I live in San Diego too, Mana, and I'll go with you being totally batshit insane too. You're like one step away from being Limbaugh or Hannity.

I don't like illegal immigrants in America either, but your solution sounds an awful lot like that "kill em all and let god sort em out" way of thinking that is so popular nowadays.

 

[DarienA]

What's sad is that everyone ignored Loki's post. He hit the nail on the head right there.

I personally thought he mirrored my thoughts exactly.... hit the nail on the head.. knocked it out the park baby!

 

[levious]

Hey, in Texas it's apparently acceptable to shoot illegals who try to swim across the border, even when they've turned around to go back.

So maybe Mana is not all that insane.

 

[vangace]

Hey, in Texas it's apparently acceptable to shoot illegals who try to swim across the border, even when they've turned around to go back.

So maybe Mana is not all that insane.

there goes the debate...

 

[Chrono]

Yeah, a lot of the people that care about this immigration problem are racist. I'm not saying anybody in this board is, but considering the kind of subject this is I'm betting racists are the first to be pissed off.

But...

So what? That doesn't counter the points made in Loki's post.


By your logic most of the country is racist because they supported the war in Afghanistan. I'm sure Muslim-hating bigots were the most excited about the war, does that make it any less justified for others that supported it? I don’t think so.

Also, and I don’t mean this in a bad way AT ALL, Hispanics should be worrying and working on American problems and not bringing in as many other Hispanics in as they can. Saying things like “in ten years we’ll control California” is dangerous because you’re saying you’re a separate group from the rest of Americans and are working for the benefit of Hispanics from all over the world and not Americans. That’s like saying you’re not really American but you’re just milking this country for ‘”your people” or something…

 

[Loki]

Something so simple? If there was a forceful effort to "round up and deport" the illegal aliens from this country, you would be facing riots, and not just from the aliens themselves.

Riots? From who? Illegal immigration reform/deportation is consistently the domestic issue that shows the highest consensus among American citizens. Upwards of 75% are against illegal immigration. Now, obviously, being "against" something can take any number of forms, from advocating deportation to less stringent measures, but to think that those 75% of people are going to risk their own life and limb by RIOTING in support of those illegals is stretching things a bit.


Further, what kind of argument is that? "Oh no, you can't do what's right or else we'll riot!"-- what kind of shit is that? Let people riot then for all I care-- if they really believe that the current situation is just, let them riot and then let them get arrested for it; it'd serve them right for opposing sensible measures at reform. And yes, deportation is sensible.

And imagine the kinds of people you would get answering the call to join a "deportation task force" or however you want to label it. I'm not even saying the majority of them would be racist, but you'd have enough motivated by hate that you'd couldn't do it "cleanly"; and thats' going to touch off more dissent

Non-sequitur. Are you trying to insinuate that anybody who'd want to do the right (i.e., legal, correct, and proper) thing by participating in solving the illegal issue actively by taking those jobs would be a racist? I'd wager that you'd have the same number of racists among that group as there are in society at large; beyond that, who really gives a shit? So long as proper protocol is followed (i.e., you can't shoot/abuse border crossers, but must detain/arrest them), their supposed "racist" thoughts wouldn't be able to be given expression.


Still, this is a laughable point imo, since it's not in ANY way logically connected to the point I made. If things were different and I was in a worse situation with regards to my future, I'd do it myself. Am I a racist also? There are tens of millions of people just like me. Answer this question at your own risk.

Even while you trained such a force, you'd be overburdening the existing police force with whatever shit-fest arises when people hear about this now-forming legion of skull-crackers.

Again, non-sequitur. There is VAST consensus among the American populace about border protection; to insist that there will be a "shit-fest" is to ignore reality. Maybe there would be, but it would be from a vocal minority with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, which is no surprise. As to the "skull-crackers" comment, well, I'm not even going to dignify that. You're assuming that I'm advocating vigilante justice at the border. Are police officers similarly "skull-crackers"? Well then neither would a border patrol be. Such a comment just betrays your biases.

Speaking of training, you're going to be spending a lot more than $10 billion to create this force... it's not just salary, you have to deal with training, equipment, etc.

Fine, if you want to niggle about it. Cut the number down to 150-200K officers, then, with the rest going for supplies. Like I said, even if the initial outlay was larger than the $10B we lose each year to illegal aliens, it would quickly pay for itself over the course of a few years. Equipment costs and the like are a one-time expense (or at least once every 5-7 years), btw, and so it's not as prohibitive as you'd like to imagine.

Not to mention the diplomatic fallout with Mexico. And despite Bush's claims to the contrary, our economy and well-being does rely on other nations (Mexico in particular).

If you really want to do something about it, I agree with Tommie Hu$tle; go after the ones hiring the immigrants. They're much easier to spot and do something about. But ultimately, something needs to be done to improve the situation in Mexico. How much of that falls on our shoulders... I have no idea.

Diplomatic fallout with Mexico? :lol Jesus, I don't even know what to say-- so you're saying that we should continue to overlook a situation of GRAVE importance and cost just so that we don't ruffle feathers with a nation as small and insignificant (economically/politically, that is) as Mexico? I could see if it was China or Russia or something, and you wanted to keep things cool, but come on now...


As for going after those who hire illegals: I agree wholeheartedly. However, that is not the topic, and I've spoken out against those companies on a number of occasions.

If you remove the financial incentive by charging not only stiff fines but, prison time for those convicted of hiring illegals then you would shore up 70% of the problem. Start treating the real criminals like criminals.

Agreed. But this only removes one of the incentives (albeit a large one) for illegals to migrate here. The others include our benefits programs and the fact that their kids will be citizens if they're born on our soil (a law which I think needs to be looked at anew in light of our present circumstance). Further, if they're here, and we remove all opportunities for them to work, or receive benefits, or receive free medical care, what will happen? I think you'd have a potentially explosive and inhumane situation (particularly as regards the children); I think that would be much worse than merely deporting them and policing the border.

But I think absorbing the existing population of illegal immigrants is less of a problem once the influx stops than, say, mass deportation.

False. This is what happens if you grant amnesty:

If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

If you are NOT proposing amnesty, and just want to leave things as-is vis-a-vis illegal immigrants, then we're still absorbing over $10B in costs per year, and entire sectors of the Californian economy are in danger of insolvency. Think that's an exaggeration?

You all seem to be arguing that there is only two types of immigrants Legal and Illegal. There are people that came into the country legally, their status expired and are still here, thus deemed "illegal".

When you take into account that immigration proceses can take years upon years you can see that there are children here "illegally"(through no fault of their own) but are so far integrated into this society that going back to their respective countries would be devastating. If you were brought here at 5 yrs or so, and your parent's immigration process has taken 10 yrs(yes, some processes take that long), you have a 15 yr old in the middle of high schooling, pretty much Americanized. Fifteen years old, can't work, can't drive, very likely knows more english that they do their respective language, very well could be an assest to society. This is what the uproar is about, not the border jumpers.

Largely irrelevant; this is the exception, not the rule. As such, it should not inform any decisions as to what would constitute sensible policy as it pertains to the vast majority of illegals, who are not in such a situation as you popose above.

You are missing my point or maybe i didn't explain it clearly. Legal Hispanics will support any bill that will better the lives of illegal Hispanics for the simple reason that they are the same people and most of them are related. So if Anorld does anything that adversely affect the lives of the illegals(hispanics), he will loose support from the legal Hispanics.

I didn't miss anything; in fact, this was one of the only two ways that your post could have been construed, as I mentioned. I felt like giving legal Hispanic voters/citizens the benefit of the doubt, but if you insist that they will "support any bill that will better the lives of illegal Hispanics", then, to be blunt, allow me to say this: fuck all such hispanics, legal and illegal. Are we clear?

no one is disputing that, but the fact is there are more than 2million of them here in california and increasing. Our government will not deport them, imagine a situation 10 -15 years from now when there will be 10million illegal immigrants in california, what will you do then??

:lol

This is rich. So the argument now is that "there's so many of them already here, and so many legal hispanics support them, that we should let them stay". Ten years from now, you'll say-- as you do above-- that "there are 10 million of them here; we can't do anything about them". This is a bullshit rationale-- essentially a slippery slope argument in reverse. I'll leave it to you to figure out where your brain misfired. I'm a busy man, and I don't do people's thinking for them.

So sad...

Actually, no, he's entirely correct. It is you (and others like you-- apparently every Hispanic person in California :lol) who are "so sad". Do some thinking.

Hey, in Texas it's apparently acceptable to shoot illegals who try to swim across the border, even when they've turned around to go back.

False, unless you can provide corroborating evidence. I say that it's false because I distinctly recall a case from a few years back where an illegal immigrant was actually allowed to file a lawsuit against the American government because one of his relatives died of dehydration while crossing the barren desert illegally; they argued that there should have been water/rest stations periodically placed in the desert so that this wouldn't happen. That they were even permitted to file such a BOGUS lawsuit says some very damning things about our nation. Further, in any big city, people's hands are tied with respect to identifying/reporting illegals to the proper authorities-- hospitals, gov't workers, employers-- they are either not permitted to inquire as to one's legal status or, if they are aware of their illegal status, cannot deny them services and cannot report them to be detained/deported. Incredible.


In light of these facts, I have a hard time imagining that we can go from that to being allowed to shoot illegals on sight. Then again, it IS Texas, so who knows. Obviously, I don't support such actions; I'd still like a link to that if it's possible.

Also, and I don’t mean this in a bad way AT ALL, Hispanics should be worrying and working on American problems and not bringing in as many other Hispanics in as they can. Saying things like “in ten years we’ll control California” is dangerous because you’re saying you’re a separate group from the rest of Americans and are working for the benefit of Hispanics from all over the world and not Americans. That’s like saying you’re not really American but you’re just milking this country for ‘”your people” or something…

Bingo.


I could say a lot more about this issue, and could flesh out my rationale-- particularly as it concerns the ethics of the situation-- sufficiently enough that it would pretty much be airtight (believe me); unfortunately, I don't/can't live on this forum anymore, and so I'll let my words stand, although they can be quibbled with in their current level of detail. To recap: anybody who supports illegal immigrants is a joke-- that goes for whites and hispanics, democrats and republicans, smart people and dumb people (of which we have a few prime specimens in this thread, who shall remain nameless).


Anyway, I have stuff to do.

 

[Boogie]

Hey Loki, whatever happened to you being so busy for the next six months or so that you wouldn't be able to spend any time here on the forums? ;P

 

[vangace]

Riots? From who? Illegal immigration reform/deportation is consistently the domestic issue that shows the highest consensus among American citizens. Upwards of 75% are against illegal immigration. Now, obviously, being "against" something can take any number of forms, from advocating deportation to less stringent measures, but to think that those 75% of people are going to risk their own life and limb by RIOTING in support of those illegals is stretching things a bit.


Further, what kind of argument is that? "Oh no, you can't do what's right or else we'll riot!"-- what kind of shit is that? Let people riot then for all I care-- if they really believe that the current situation is just, let them riot and then let them get arrested for it; it'd serve them right for opposing sensible measures at reform. And yes, deportation is sensible.

Non-sequitur. Are you trying to insinuate that anybody who'd want to do the right (i.e., legal, correct, and proper) thing by participating in solving the illegal issue actively by taking those jobs would be a racist? I'd wager that you'd have the same number of racists among that group as there are in society at large; beyond that, who really gives a shit? So long as proper protocol is followed (i.e., you can't shoot/abuse border crossers, but must detain/arrest them), their supposed "racist" thoughts wouldn't be able to be given expression.


Still, this is a laughable point imo, since it's not in ANY way logically connected to the point I made. If things were different and I was in a worse situation with regards to my future, I'd do it myself. Am I a racist also? There are tens of millions of people just like me. Answer this question at your own risk.




Again, non-sequitur. There is VAST consensus among the American populace about border protection; to insist that there will be a "shit-fest" is to ignore reality. Maybe there would be, but it would be from a vocal minority with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, which is no surprise. As to the "skull-crackers" comment, well, I'm not even going to dignify that. You're assuming that I'm advocating vigilante justice at the border. Are police officers similarly "skull-crackers"? Well then neither would a border patrol be. Such a comment just betrays your biases.



Fine, if you want to niggle about it. Cut the number down to 150-200K officers, then, with the rest going for supplies. Like I said, even if the initial outlay was larger than the $10B we lose each year to illegal aliens, it would quickly pay for itself over the course of a few years. Equipment costs and the like are a one-time expense (or at least once every 5-7 years), btw, and so it's not as prohibitive as you'd like to imagine.




Diplomatic fallout with Mexico? :lol Jesus, I don't even know what to say-- so you're saying that we should continue to overlook a situation of GRAVE importance and cost just so that we don't ruffle feathers with a nation as small and insignificant (economically/politically, that is) as Mexico? I could see if it was China or Russia or something, and you wanted to keep things cool, but come on now...


As for going after those who hire illegals: I agree wholeheartedly. However, that is not the topic, and I've spoken out against those companies on a number of occasions.





Agreed. But this only removes one of the incentives (albeit a large one) for illegals to migrate here. The others include our benefits programs and the fact that their kids will be citizens if they're born on our soil (a law which I think needs to be looked at anew in light of our present circumstance). Further, if they're here, and we remove all opportunities for them to work, or receive benefits, or receive free medical care, what will happen? I think you'd have a potentially explosive and inhumane situation (particularly as regards the children); I think that would be much worse than merely deporting them and policing the border.




False. This is what happens if you grant amnesty:



If you are NOT proposing amnesty, and just want to leave things as-is vis-a-vis illegal immigrants, then we're still absorbing over $10B in costs per year, and entire sectors of the Californian economy are in danger of insolvency. Think that's an exaggeration?




Largely irrelevant; this is the exception, not the rule. As such, it should not inform any decisions as to what would constitute sensible policy as it pertains to the vast majority of illegals, who are not in such a situation as you popose above.




I didn't miss anything; in fact, this was one of the only two ways that your post could have been construed, as I mentioned. I felt like giving legal Hispanic voters/citizens the benefit of the doubt, but if you insist that they will "support any bill that will better the lives of illegal Hispanics", then, to be blunt, allow me to say this: fuck all such hispanics, legal and illegal. Are we clear?




:lol

This is rich. So the argument now is that "there's so many of them already here, and so many legal hispanics support them, that we should let them stay". Ten years from now, you'll say-- as you do above-- that "there are 10 million of them here; we can't do anything about them". This is a bullshit rationale-- essentially a slippery slope argument in reverse. I'll leave it to you to figure out where your brain misfired. I'm a busy man, and I don't do people's thinking for them.



Actually, no, he's entirely correct. It is you (and others like you-- apparently every Hispanic person in California :lol) who are "so sad". Do some thinking.




False, unless you can provide corroborating evidence. I say that it's false because I distinctly recall a case from a few years back where an illegal immigrant was actually allowed to file a lawsuit against the American government because one of his relatives died of dehydration while crossing the barren desert illegally; they argued that there should have been water/rest stations periodically placed in the desert so that this wouldn't happen. That they were even permitted to file such a BOGUS lawsuit says some very damning things about our nation. Further, in any big city, people's hands are tied with respect to identifying/reporting illegals to the proper authorities-- hospitals, gov't workers, employers-- they are either not permitted to inquire as to one's legal status or, if they are aware of their illegal status, cannot deny them services and cannot report them to be detained/deported. Incredible.


In light of these facts, I have a hard time imagining that we can go from that to being allowed to shoot illegals on sight. Then again, it IS Texas, so who knows. Obviously, I don't support such actions; I'd still like a link to that if it's possible.



Bingo.


I could say a lot more about this issue, and could flesh out my rationale-- particularly as it concerns the ethics of the situation-- sufficiently enough that it would pretty much be airtight (believe me); unfortunately, I don't/can't live on this forum anymore, and so I'll let my words stand, although they can be quibbled with in their current level of detail. To recap: anybody who supports illegal immigrants is a joke-- that goes for whites and hispanics, democrats and republicans, smart people and dumb people (of which we have a few prime specimens in this thread, who shall remain nameless).


Anyway, I have stuff to do.

From your post it is clear that you are a racist son of bitch. I thought i was having an honest debate with a rationale person but i was mistaken. All you talk about are hypothetical situations, the reality is that there are 2million of them here in Cali and in a couple years this number will double. Since the government won't deport them... what should states like CA do?? In 10 to 15 years there is going to be a situation were 10million undocumented people are roaming the street of LA.

Now if you want me to take you seriously don't tell me you solution is deport them because the government won't do it.

 

[Boogie]

You have issues man, you need to see a shrink

BRILLIANT REBUTTAL!!!

 

[Boogie]

Double Post.

 

[Boogie]

From your post it is clear that you are a racist son of bitch. I thought i was having an honest debate with a rationale person but i was mistaken.

Ha, even better.

 

[ManaByte]

From your post it is clear that you are a racist son of bitch. I thought i was having an honest debate with a rationale person but i was mistaken.

Loki wins.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Diplomatic fallout with Mexico? :lol Jesus, I don't even know what to say-- so you're saying that we should continue to overlook a situation of GRAVE importance and cost just so that we don't ruffle feathers with a nation as small and insignificant (economically/politically, that is) as Mexico? I could see if it was China or Russia or something, and you wanted to keep things cool, but come on now...

Wow that's great that Mexico is an insignificant country now then explain how jobs are being moved for the US to Mexico by the truckloads. Setting up shop in Mexico isn't insignificant to my stock portfolio. And if you look at the way our Administration runs what country is signifigant?

 

[Banjo Tango]

Riots? From who? Illegal immigration reform/deportation is consistently the domestic issue that shows the highest consensus among American citizens. Upwards of 75% are against illegal immigration. Now, obviously, being "against" something can take any number of forms, from advocating deportation to less stringent measures, but to think that those 75% of people are going to risk their own life and limb by RIOTING in support of those illegals is stretching things a bit.

I'm not saying you're going to be facing rioting from 75% of the populace, just that you would have riots on your hand if force was taken. I don't see how you could assume millions of people would quietly leave, or that their supporters would stand idly by, especially in such a racially charged issue.

Further, what kind of argument is that? "Oh no, you can't do what's right or else we'll riot!"-- what kind of shit is that? Let people riot then for all I care-- if they really believe that the current situation is just, let them riot and then let them get arrested for it; it'd serve them right for opposing sensible measures at reform. And yes, deportation is sensible.

"Right" is pretty subjective; and if you blindly do the "right" thing and damn the consequences, you can end up doing more harm than good. But who cares, you're doing what's "right." Right?

Non-sequitur. Are you trying to insinuate that anybody who'd want to do the right (i.e., legal, correct, and proper) thing by participating in solving the illegal issue actively by taking those jobs would be a racist? I'd wager that you'd have the same number of racists among that group as there are in society at large; beyond that, who really gives a shit? So long as proper protocol is followed (i.e., you can't shoot/abuse border crossers, but must detain/arrest them), their supposed "racist" thoughts wouldn't be able to be given expression.

I hate to repeat myself, but I'm not saying the majority of the people being hired would be racist. I'm saying that the people who were would be attracted to this kind of thing, and I would think, in many cases, it would bring out the worst in people. If history is any indication, I would be amazed if people stuck to protocol.

Still, this is a laughable point imo, since it's not in ANY way logically connected to the point I made. If things were different and I was in a worse situation with regards to my future, I'd do it myself. Am I a racist also? There are tens of millions of people just like me. Answer this question at your own risk.

Read my statement again before you get all defensive.

Again, non-sequitur. There is VAST consensus among the American populace about border protection; to insist that there will be a "shit-fest" is to ignore reality. Maybe there would be, but it would be from a vocal minority with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, which is no surprise.

Better border protection, yes - but mass, forceful deportation?

As to the "skull-crackers" comment, well, I'm not even going to dignify that. You're assuming that I'm advocating vigilante justice at the border. Are police officers similarly "skull-crackers"? Well then neither would a border patrol be. Such a comment just betrays your biases.

Maybe I'm totally misjudging your proposal... I didn't think you meant to use these guys were just a border-patrol, I thought they were meant to round up illegal immigrants in the cities and surrounding area and forcefully deport them. And yeah, I'm pretty biased against this idea.

Fine, if you want to niggle about it. Cut the number down to 150-200K officers, then, with the rest going for supplies. Like I said, even if the initial outlay was larger than the $10B we lose each year to illegal aliens, it would quickly pay for itself over the course of a few years. Equipment costs and the like are a one-time expense (or at least once every 5-7 years), btw, and so it's not as prohibitive as you'd like to imagine.

I was just trying to get at the point that this simple plan isn't/.

Diplomatic fallout with Mexico? :lol Jesus, I don't even know what to say-- so you're saying that we should continue to overlook a situation of GRAVE importance and cost just so that we don't ruffle feathers with a nation as small and insignificant (economically/politically, that is) as Mexico? I could see if it was China or Russia or something, and you wanted to keep things cool, but come on now...

Our second largest trading partner is somehow economically insignificant?

So to me it sounds like you're saying -

- It's entirely feasable to train a force which will professionally and objectively be able to remove a large portion, if not all, of the illegal immigrants from the US

- You don't think there will be significant reprisal against the training or use of this force, because of wide-spread support for border protection, the illegal status of the immigrants, and because of the typically professional day-to-day behavior of our soldiers and police

- Deportation is the right thing to do; we can't shirk from it just because it might be "unpleasant".

- Amnesty has too high of a cost, and it's wrong

 

[LakeEarth]

http://jobs.ytmnd.com/

And one for the hell of it

http://dontyouf.ytmnd.com/