Hillary: Those who want to deport illegals are "living in some other universe"

[HAL 9000 96]

So what's it going to be Charles? Humanitarian treatment of people already here or closing the border off. U pick.

like i said earlier, spare me the emotional appeal bs. it really trivializes anything you have to say and if your argument is solely based on that, then you've lost.

Like before you're skating the issue. Question still stands. Where do you want to take the argument? Being human here or closing the border off? U pick.

I can't speak for Charles but I can for myself. Close the border. As for being human what does that mean? Handing over all of our rights to people that do not have a right to them? I would give emergency care to someone that needs it but if your talking about free medical care to everyone regardless of status then the answer is no. Send them home and let their own country take care of them.

Good, Gary, good. This is what I'm after. I also believe that we can have a shred of human decency for those in need. Free medical care is something alltogether different. I'd let health care providers decide how much pro bono work they are willing to do on their own time. And I feel that while many MDs care little for pro bono work in treating a cold, others feel that they have an actual inclination to care for people. That's what makes them doctors.

To add into this thought ... stabalize the person (illegal alien) ... then send them back to their own country for further treatment. Immediate deportation for humanitarian purposes (to receive health care).

And what happens if the MDs decide they have done enough pro bono work ... and still illegals need treatment? Do we give the MDs pro bono time/ effort to illegals over the pro bono time for USCs?

This wouldn't be the first time I see a hospital close its doors to those in need, which is usually what happens when there are no more pro bono hours.

So ... illegals taking the pro bono hours away from USC ... is ok?

And ... you have no problem with the item highlighted in red above ? (as there was no comment made in regards to the statement)

The comment in red is a legislative issue, not a humanitarian one.

Damn illegals... taking everything away from citizens... its amazing how citizens haven't organized mob squads to do something about this.

[kaydee457 13]

Good... something to discuss (yet apart from the whole clogged ER thing... I agree we can divest ourselves from that issue for obvious lack of observers out there):

Alternatives?

1) Close the border

2) those that are here illegallly- their status should remain in limbo

3) close off the employment prospects by legislating laws that severly punish the employers

Items 2 and 3 will force most illegals to leave of their volition.

4) Adopt migrant "temporary workers" visa's with short term residency, and no accompanying family members

5) Limit numbers of "temporary workers" to what the market will support (at this time there are far more illegals than there are jobs for them, hence they congregate, sometimes 100 or more at a time, on street corners hoping for a single day of work. As evidenced by the number still there hours later there clearly are too many of them and not enough jobs.

6) Punish overstays and violations severly but reward those that work within the system with incentives for future residency if they so desire.

I'm sure there's more but the bottom line is that we should not reward those that have broken the law with legal residency. Been there and done that!!

1) People can go under, above, and to the sides of the border. This is a metaphor as well.

Well, not true unless you just visualize a physical fence. There are systems, some of which we used in Vietnam and still make use of in Iraq, that are to be employed along the border fence. They are cheap, very effective and require minimal human intervention in terms of monitoring.

2) OK. No appeasement of illegals. This is logical.

3) And employers will move where they can do business more profitably if current business practices are allowed to continue. Incentives need to accompany the punishments in order to maintain target business in their areas. Otherwise, out of their own volition as well, companies will fly south and stay south if possible.

If possible is the key word. It's not reasonable to suggest that meatpackers, chicken processing factories, and the like that make use of "illegal" labor would move anywhere as the labor outlay isn't as significant as other costs such as transportation, etc.

Most employers do not seek out illegals but rather the other way around. Illegals gain employment by providing falsified documents. There's no reason to believe that these jobs wouldn't simply be filled by legal residents.

4) Maybe doable for temporary workers. I would add sweetening the deal by investing a small amount of funds in improving their temporary access by educating them so they use temporary programs less and qualify for sweeter visas later, or, even better, improve their situation at home.

5) This is logical.

6) Permanent barring should be enough. If we want to instill a value-based system of laws, we need to ensure we do so from the get-go as long as the visa violations are judged to be intentional, and there is not enough oversight beyond one, perhaps two examiners and an immigration judge at the current procedural structure.

Well, I don't think you can get any more severe than that.

All of these alternatives are logical. But they will not work by doing things solely on our end of the business deal. We need to address the issues that create illegal immigration in the first place in order to make it a non-issue.

I certainly don't agree with this. We cannot cure the ills of the world and the practical reality is that we can "make noise" but to suggest that we can somehow pressure these countries to become more sympathetic to their own citizens is somewhat naive.

Geopolitics dictates that we need to have allies that we can rely on and like the "bad apple" in the family ( almost all families have one) for the sake of the family we try to get along with family members that occasionally misbehave.

Strong enemies are evolving down south and it's important that we keep our allies regadless of their "faults"....lest we be alone!

[HAL 9000 96]

no interest. nor do we have to agree. got that yet?

And that's not being a hardheadline?? I mean, no interest in... debate... or no interest in actually getting to know others' opinions?

We agree, we disagree. Big deal.

At the end of the day you quit typing and have a loving wife. So do I. That is what ultimately matters.

nice edit. it's interesting that everyone has to see your pov, but you don't have to see anyone elses.

Well, other than closing the borders and all the other yadda, do share your opinion about what to do with people that need emergency help. That's all I was asking in the first place of you pre-snide Charles. Thanks.

[garya505 2]

Alternatives?

1) Close the border

2) those that are here illegallly- their status should remain in limbo

3) close off the employment prospects by legislating laws that severly punish the employers

Items 2 and 3 will force most illegals to leave of their volition.

4) Adopt migrant "temporary workers" visa's with short term residency, and no accompanying family members

5) Limit numbers of "temporary workers" to what the market will support (at this time there are far more illegals than there are jobs for them, hence they congregate, sometimes 100 or more at a time, on street corners hoping for a single day of work. As evidenced by the number still there hours later there clearly are too many of them and not enough jobs.

6) Punish overstays and violations severly but reward those that work within the system with incentives for future residency if they so desire.

I'm sure there's more but the bottom line is that we should not reward those that have broken the law with legal residency. Been there and done that!!

You sir, are dead-on right. What you have outlined here is by far the best approach.

[kaydee457 13]

So what's it going to be Charles? Humanitarian treatment of people already here or closing the border off. U pick.

like i said earlier, spare me the emotional appeal bs. it really trivializes anything you have to say and if your argument is solely based on that, then you've lost.

Like before you're skating the issue. Question still stands. Where do you want to take the argument? Being human here or closing the border off? U pick.

I can't speak for Charles but I can for myself. Close the border. As for being human what does that mean? Handing over all of our rights to people that do not have a right to them? I would give emergency care to someone that needs it but if your talking about free medical care to everyone regardless of status then the answer is no. Send them home and let their own country take care of them.

Good, Gary, good. This is what I'm after. I also believe that we can have a shred of human decency for those in need. Free medical care is something alltogether different. I'd let health care providers decide how much pro bono work they are willing to do on their own time. And I feel that while many MDs care little for pro bono work in treating a cold, others feel that they have an actual inclination to care for people. That's what makes them doctors.

To add into this thought ... stabalize the person (illegal alien) ... then send them back to their own country for further treatment. Immediate deportation for humanitarian purposes (to receive health care).

And what happens if the MDs decide they have done enough pro bono work ... and still illegals need treatment? Do we give the MDs pro bono time/ effort to illegals over the pro bono time for USCs?

This wouldn't be the first time I see a hospital close its doors to those in need, which is usually what happens when there are no more pro bono hours.

So ... illegals taking the pro bono hours away from USC ... is ok?

And ... you have no problem with the item highlighted in red above ? (as there was no comment made in regards to the statement)

The comment in red is a legislative issue, not a humanitarian one.

Damn illegals... taking everything away from citizens... its amazing how citizens haven't organized mob squads to do something about this.

It's these kinds of comments that help diminish your arguments.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Then don't visit our store since you're not even looking at the merchandise.

so you are saying i shouldn't be in this thread?

Charles, Charles -

You gotta admit, you take a pretty hardline stance on this issue. I think the analogy is - do you ever consider other points of view? Do you walk into the store at all and look around?

Why oh why does this issue have to be black or white? My way or the high way?

There's BOATLOADS of reasons the politicians haven't settled this issue before now - not the least of which is the fact that we are about to elect a new president. The pols realize there are constituents who want all the illegals put on the first bus back home. But that isn't going to happen!

and a hardline stance isn't an acceptable view? should i run for president of the kkk now?

I know you're annoyed. I wasn't trying to ratchet you up.

I'm asking an honest question here.

People see me post in threads about EWI's and I can tell - by the immediate response I get - oh there she is again - illegal lover. It might be unnecessary 'soul baring' for this crowd, but that really upsets me. I've spent a lot of time reading and learning about this issue. I'm not an 'illegal lover' at all and I don't believe most of the posters in 'my camp' are either.

I get the impression 'the other camp' doesn't think we read the links put up for us. As far as me personally, that couldn't be further from the truth. There is much fact in 'hardline' data. I read the links you all put up for me. I don't immediately discount them. I do look behind the source of that data as well.

As for my comment yesterday about the Klan - when someone chooses to try and reduce another persons argument to a racial quotient, that is racism in my book. Or at the very least immaturity.

My biggest concerns with amnesty legislation are any 'peripheral' legislation that will come off of it. I'm concerned about what our government will do limiting current levels of legal immigration. I'm concerned they will further limit the family categories. I'm concerned we will start 'picking and choosing' our immigrants. I'm concerned about the happiness of future couples like Wes and I - you and Nessa. I get very nervous when the government starts messing with that.

That stuff DOES matter in the context of any discussion about amnesty. Why? Because over and over again - at least in the recent historical past - whenever legislators have addressed the issue of amnesty it has overflowed to what and who is admissible legally.

I'm not a proponent of illegal entry or rewarding those people. But I do get nervous when we start picking who is entitled to what services in our country, etc.

Soooooooo.....if you walked 'into the store' you might see why some of us don't jump up and down on the 'deport them' bandwagon.

And that's all I'm sayin...............

since that one has been thrown around already in here, i figured it was coming again.

while i understand your concern about any peripheral fallout from any illegal legislation, i also don't believe in borrowing trouble - worrying about it to excess or thinking it will limit family based immigration (no not the website), nor should it serve as a basis for doing nothing about illegal immigration as that certainly won't solve anything (witness the current fiasco in the usa).

no interest. nor do we have to agree. got that yet?

And that's not being a hardheadline?? I mean, no interest in... debate... or no interest in actually getting to know others' opinions?

We agree, we disagree. Big deal.

At the end of the day you quit typing and have a loving wife. So do I. That is what ultimately matters.

nice edit. it's interesting that everyone has to see your pov, but you don't have to see anyone elses.

Well, other than closing the borders and all the other yadda, do share your opinion about what to do with people that need emergency help. That's all I was asking in the first place of you pre-snide Charles. Thanks.

when are you gonna figure it out that it's not my problem? someone shows up at my house in need of major surgery does not mean i have a compulsion to pay for it. get real will you?

[rebeccajo 14]

since that one has been thrown around already in here, i figured it was coming again.

while i understand your concern about any peripheral fallout from any illegal legislation, i also don't believe in borrowing trouble - worrying about it to excess or thinking it will limit family based immigration (no not the website), nor should it serve as a basis for doing nothing about illegal immigration as that certainly won't solve anything (witness the current fiasco in the usa).

Ah - look at your first sentence! Why are you saying that!

That sounds like categorically denying before thinking about the point! I might be wrong because maybe you've thought about it before. But the answer came pretty quickly.

We have a problem in this country with illegal entry. Fine - we both agree on that.

Is it possible that we don't really need any new laws to deal with that? Is it possible we just need to enforce the laws on the books? Or create better infrastructure (ie technology) to handle it?

Do we really need to write new laws?

Edited February 4, 2008 by rebeccajo

[natty bumppo 297]

I can't speak for Charles but I can for myself. Close the border. As for being human what does that mean? Handing over all of our rights to people that do not have a right to them? I would give emergency care to someone that needs it but if your talking about free medical care to everyone regardless of status then the answer is no. Send them home and let their own country take care of them.

Good, Gary, good. This is what I'm after. I also believe that we can have a shred of human decency for those in need. Free medical care is something alltogether different. I'd let health care providers decide how much pro bono work they are willing to do on their own time. And I feel that while many MDs care little for pro bono work in treating a cold, others feel that they have an actual inclination to care for people. That's what makes them doctors.

To add into this thought ... stabalize the person (illegal alien) ... then send them back to their own country for further treatment. Immediate deportation for humanitarian purposes (to receive health care).

And what happens if the MDs decide they have done enough pro bono work ... and still illegals need treatment? Do we give the MDs pro bono time/ effort to illegals over the pro bono time for USCs?

This wouldn't be the first time I see a hospital close its doors to those in need, which is usually what happens when there are no more pro bono hours.

So ... illegals taking the pro bono hours away from USC ... is ok?

And ... you have no problem with the item highlighted in red above ? (as there was no comment made in regards to the statement)

The comment in red is a legislative issue, not a humanitarian one.

Damn illegals... taking everything away from citizens... its amazing how citizens haven't organized mob squads to do something about this.

Actually it's both ... will illegals seek emergency care knowing they will be immediately deported to obtain further treatment? I can hear the cry now ... it's not humane to separate a family because someone needs medical care ...

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, not true unless you just visualize a physical fence. There are systems, some of which we used in Vietnam and still make use of in Iraq, that are to be employed along the border fence. They are cheap, very effective and require minimal human intervention in terms of monitoring.

Ummm... you probably don't want to bring up Vietnam. Plus you need to close the entire border off completely and its cost is NOT cheap. Specially when compared to the cost of installation, maintenance, and patrolling. And still you'd have the human factor of creativity to contend with.

If possible is the key word. It's not reasonable to suggest that meatpackers, chicken processing factories, and the like that make use of "illegal" labor would move anywhere as the labor outlay isn't as significant as other costs such as transportation, etc.

Most employers do not seek out illegals but rather the other way around. Illegals gain employment by providing falsified documents. There's no reason to believe that these jobs wouldn't simply be filled by legal residents.

If is a big word indeed. And the food industry actually is seeking to diversify south of the border.

Sure you'd have the possibility that these jobs be filled by legals. And you'd also have the possibility that they pack up and go elsewhere the law is more favorable to their bottom dollar, peso, yen, etc. A factory can be moved internationally quite easily.

I certainly don't agree with this. We cannot cure the ills of the world and the practical reality is that we can "make noise" but to suggest that we can somehow pressure these countries to become more sympathetic to their own citizens is somewhat naive.

We are not talking about curing the ills of the world. We are talking about not abusing our power to stimulate the growth of corrupt economies that, hin hint, yield illegal immigration our way.

Geopolitics dictates that we need to have allies that we can rely on and like the "bad apple" in the family ( almost all families have one) for the sake of the family we try to get along with family members that occasionally misbehave.

Strong enemies are evolving down south and it's important that we keep our allies regadless of their "faults"....lest we be alone!

This in itself is an entirely other matter. In the past we have followed the appeasement of bad apples by removing democratically elected governments in the region you describe, supported corruption left and right, and watched our interests grow along with the flow of illegal immigration.

What you consider misbehaving is an assertion of sovereignty. Every nation has a right to express itself as it sees fit much like we do so here. Even if it means having a silly dictator in office, democratically elected, on the left or on the right. What is completely unacceptable- as it pertains to the topic of illegal immigration, is trying to have our cake and eat it too while not letting the bakers get a piece of the action.

If you see strong "enemies" down south please elaborate in a separate topic. I'm sure your Cold War mentality about whom I think you're thinking of will be analyzed in that light.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

since that one has been thrown around already in here, i figured it was coming again.

while i understand your concern about any peripheral fallout from any illegal legislation, i also don't believe in borrowing trouble - worrying about it to excess or thinking it will limit family based immigration (no not the website), nor should it serve as a basis for doing nothing about illegal immigration as that certainly won't solve anything (witness the current fiasco in the usa).

Ah - look at your first sentence! Why are you saying that!

maybe this is why?

vw ....

geg for president

Of what? The KKK?

That sounds like categorically denying before thinking about the point! I might be wrong because maybe you've thought about it before. But the answer came pretty quickly.

We have a problem in this country with illegal entry. Fine - we both agree on that.

Is it possible that we don't really need any new laws to deal with that? Is it possible we just need to enforce the laws on the books? Or create better infrastructure (ie technology) to handle it?

Do we really need to write new laws?

so you don't like quick answers? oh well, can't help that.

enforce the laws, harsher penalties for employers of illegals, and yes technology needs to be used to help ferret out those using fake ids.

you decide if new laws are needed or not.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Well, not true unless you just visualize a physical fence. There are systems, some of which we used in Vietnam and still make use of in Iraq, that are to be employed along the border fence. They are cheap, very effective and require minimal human intervention in terms of monitoring.

Ummm... you probably don't want to bring up Vietnam. Plus you need to close the entire border off completely and its cost is NOT cheap. Specially when compared to the cost of installation, maintenance, and patrolling. And still you'd have the human factor of creativity to contend with.

no, you don't.

try to understand the military concept of an obstacle. it will slow or impede movement but it won't stop it. obstacles are used to channel movement also, so you don't close off the entire border nor is that needed.

[HAL 9000 96]

Then don't visit our store since you're not even looking at the merchandise.

so you are saying i shouldn't be in this thread?

Charles, Charles -

You gotta admit, you take a pretty hardline stance on this issue. I think the analogy is - do you ever consider other points of view? Do you walk into the store at all and look around?

Why oh why does this issue have to be black or white? My way or the high way?

There's BOATLOADS of reasons the politicians haven't settled this issue before now - not the least of which is the fact that we are about to elect a new president. The pols realize there are constituents who want all the illegals put on the first bus back home. But that isn't going to happen!

and a hardline stance isn't an acceptable view? should i run for president of the kkk now?

I know you're annoyed. I wasn't trying to ratchet you up.

I'm asking an honest question here.

People see me post in threads about EWI's and I can tell - by the immediate response I get - oh there she is again - illegal lover. It might be unnecessary 'soul baring' for this crowd, but that really upsets me. I've spent a lot of time reading and learning about this issue. I'm not an 'illegal lover' at all and I don't believe most of the posters in 'my camp' are either.

I get the impression 'the other camp' doesn't think we read the links put up for us. As far as me personally, that couldn't be further from the truth. There is much fact in 'hardline' data. I read the links you all put up for me. I don't immediately discount them. I do look behind the source of that data as well.

As for my comment yesterday about the Klan - when someone chooses to try and reduce another persons argument to a racial quotient, that is racism in my book. Or at the very least immaturity.

My biggest concerns with amnesty legislation are any 'peripheral' legislation that will come off of it. I'm concerned about what our government will do limiting current levels of legal immigration. I'm concerned they will further limit the family categories. I'm concerned we will start 'picking and choosing' our immigrants. I'm concerned about the happiness of future couples like Wes and I - you and Nessa. I get very nervous when the government starts messing with that.

That stuff DOES matter in the context of any discussion about amnesty. Why? Because over and over again - at least in the recent historical past - whenever legislators have addressed the issue of amnesty it has overflowed to what and who is admissible legally.

I'm not a proponent of illegal entry or rewarding those people. But I do get nervous when we start picking who is entitled to what services in our country, etc.

Soooooooo.....if you walked 'into the store' you might see why some of us don't jump up and down on the 'deport them' bandwagon.

And that's all I'm sayin...............

since that one has been thrown around already in here, i figured it was coming again.

while i understand your concern about any peripheral fallout from any illegal legislation, i also don't believe in borrowing trouble - worrying about it to excess or thinking it will limit family based immigration (no not the website), nor should it serve as a basis for doing nothing about illegal immigration as that certainly won't solve anything (witness the current fiasco in the usa).

no interest. nor do we have to agree. got that yet?

And that's not being a hardheadline?? I mean, no interest in... debate... or no interest in actually getting to know others' opinions?

We agree, we disagree. Big deal.

At the end of the day you quit typing and have a loving wife. So do I. That is what ultimately matters.

nice edit. it's interesting that everyone has to see your pov, but you don't have to see anyone elses.

Well, other than closing the borders and all the other yadda, do share your opinion about what to do with people that need emergency help. That's all I was asking in the first place of you pre-snide Charles. Thanks.

when are you gonna figure it out that it's not my problem? someone shows up at my house in need of major surgery does not mean i have a compulsion to pay for it. get real will you?

They're not asking you to help. Just give a damn about someone other than yourself and you may see a happier future.

But if you want to make the analogy of 'house and need' then maybe you could ask yourself why the hell they showed up in the first place. Real enough? Or is that not your problem either? News flash... they'll keep coming uninvited as long as you play the "its not my problem" card while we allow those that are the problem to continue making a fuss.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, not true unless you just visualize a physical fence. There are systems, some of which we used in Vietnam and still make use of in Iraq, that are to be employed along the border fence. They are cheap, very effective and require minimal human intervention in terms of monitoring.

Ummm... you probably don't want to bring up Vietnam. Plus you need to close the entire border off completely and its cost is NOT cheap. Specially when compared to the cost of installation, maintenance, and patrolling. And still you'd have the human factor of creativity to contend with.

no, you don't.

try to understand the military concept of an obstacle. it will slow or impede movement but it won't stop it. obstacles are used to channel movement also, so you don't close off the entire border nor is that needed.

Good point.

They can just make their way around then or better yet... build better tunnels under the obstacles. I don't think I need to talk like a strategist to remind you of human ingenuity?

[GaryC 7]

Thats just it, no new laws are needed. Any "comprehensive immigration bill" is nothing more than an amnesty. All we need to do is apply the laws we already have in an even and uniform manner and the illegal problem will fix itself. If we enforce our borders and make it impossible for anyone that isn't here legally to work then they will go home the same way they came. If we deny anyone here that is undocumented any public or government charity other than emergency care they will not have the ability to stay. The problem fixes itself.

[HAL 9000 96]

Thats just it, no new laws are needed. Any "comprehensive immigration bill" is nothing more than an amnesty. All we need to do is apply the laws we already have in an even and uniform manner and the illegal problem will fix itself. If we enforce our borders and make it impossible for anyone that isn't here legally to work then they will go home the same way they came. If we deny anyone here that is undocumented any public or government charity other than emergency care they will not have the ability to stay. The problem fixes itself.

It could happen, as could other possibilities aforementioned.