Poll: Public Wants Illegals to Go Home

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally

And you are prepared to deal with the economically disruptive effects of doing so? You are prepared to uproot families that have been here for years, including the lives of young children?

Either you don't realize the impact of what you're suggesting, or....

Yes I am. It's not my problem that they have been here illegally so long that they have roots. Just because they have gotten away with it for years does not forgive the crime. They should go home. All of them. Then we can institute a guest worker program and they can come back.

I have two problems with that.

1. By letting them in (loose to non-existent border controls) and letting them stay (by not having stronger employer sanctions to begin with, by allowing Mexican consular cards, etc.), this country is complicit in their crime. That means you, I, Steven, all of us. We're complicit by the very fact that we enabled them. To punish them now is shameless political scapegoating.

2. To uproot families the way you are describing is immoral.

You complicity argument doesn't fly. These things are not within my control or yours. It's like claiming that I am somehow complicit in the Enron accounting scandal since I willingly consumed energy. Talking about Enron: Is it also immoral to cut these guys off their illegal profits seeing that they were pretty used to them?

If you insist that you are not complicit, then I hope you can agree that the Federal Government has been, and is. They enabled this mass illegal migration of people for so long, do you really think it is just for the same Federal Government to now send them packing? I don't think it is.

BTW - you are complicit. We all are. They cook in almost every restaurant, they clean in almost every office building, they pick the grapes you eat and build the homes you live in. You don't have to have played an active role in arranging all this to be complicit. You are, we all are.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If you insist that you are not complicit, then I hope you can agree that the Federal Government has been, and is. They enabled this mass illegal migration of people for so long, do you really think it is just for the same Federal Government to now send them packing? I don't think it is.

BTW - you are complicit. We all are. They cook in almost every restaurant, they clean in almost every office building, they pick the grapes you eat and build the homes you live in. You don't have to have played an active role in arranging all this to be complicit. You are, we all are.

I think it's a good idea for the federal government to send them packing. I have not one problem with it at all, after all, two wrongs don't make a right. The right thing to do is ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE NOW. We don't even need new ones because the new one seem to capitulate to the illegals and give them even more rights than US citizens and legal immigrants have.

Speak for yorself, ari. I'm not complicit just because I eat in restaurants, eat grapes or work in an office buildings. That's like saying that because I pay taxes, I'm complicit in allowing the government to ignore border security. No such things, all my reps have known, without a doubt, how I feel about illegal aliens since 1985. My first husband whom I married in 1971, was an import, too. I have been all over this issue for more than 25 years.

We're complicit, no. The opinion and involuntary servitude of the average citizen toward illegals is ignored so that some rich cheapskate can get his big azz yard and golf course manicured for a few bucks less. DO you remember the "nanny scandals" of the 1980s that disqualified potential presidential appointees due to their not paying taxes on the wages of their foreign household help? I do, and that then is what this is all about now.

[Alex+R 0]

I don't care what anyone's rationale for their various positions on this issue are. The idea of sending the immigrants home and then inviting them back is just...retarded.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't care what anyone's rationale for their various positions on this issue are. The idea of sending the immigrants home and then inviting them back is just...retarded.

You're right. They should just send them home and forget about the invites.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't care what anyone's rationale for their various positions on this issue are. The idea of sending the immigrants home and then inviting them back is just...retarded.

You're right. They should just send them home and forget about the invites.

LOL - they should promise them a work permit, send them home, then turn around and say

"hahaha gotcha! we were just kidding! no visa for you!" B)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't care what anyone's rationale for their various positions on this issue are. The idea of sending the immigrants home and then inviting them back is just...retarded.

Just sending them back to Mexico itself is retarded. Where will these people go - particularly the ones who've been here several years? What about the children that have been born here? It's just a completely irrational and asinine idea - I can't believe that intelligent Americans are even entertaining the idea - except that they've blindly accepted the rhetoric and like parrots just keep repeating it over and over..."Send them home." It would be one of the biggest humanitarian crisis this continent ever faced not to mention the astronomical cost of rounding them up and deporting them. Pipe dreams.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Alex+R 0]

I don't care what anyone's rationale for their various positions on this issue are. The idea of sending the immigrants home and then inviting them back is just...retarded.

Just sending them back to Mexico itself is retarded. Where will these people go - particularly the ones who've been here several years? What about the children that have been born here? It's just a completely irrational and asinine idea - I can't believe that intelligent Americans are even entertaining the idea - except that they've blindly accepted the rhetoric and like parrots just keep repeating it over and over..."Send them home." It would be one of the biggest humanitarian crisis this continent ever faced not to mention the astronomical cost of rounding them up and deporting them. Pipe dreams.

I agree, but what's even more retarded is the idea of then inviting them back. ####### is the point of sending them home, then? LAWL, it's like, "oh you broke the law so now we're gonna punish you to absolve us of our own sins of complicity. Oops, please come back, we need you."

eta: I think it's clear that this idiotic "send them back" mantra must have permeated the general consciousness deeply, because why the hell else would that immigration bill have that "touch back" plan? I guess Americans demand that people go home.... oh, and then come back. Let's admit what our lawmakers already know--we need them--and let them stay but give them visas and force employers to pay them better. I

Edited May 28, 2007 by Alex+R

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't care what anyone's rationale for their various positions on this issue are. The idea of sending the immigrants home and then inviting them back is just...retarded.

Just sending them back to Mexico itself is retarded. Where will these people go - particularly the ones who've been here several years? What about the children that have been born here? It's just a completely irrational and asinine idea - I can't believe that intelligent Americans are even entertaining the idea - except that they've blindly accepted the rhetoric and like parrots just keep repeating it over and over..."Send them home." It would be one of the biggest humanitarian crisis this continent ever faced not to mention the astronomical cost of rounding them up and deporting them. Pipe dreams.

I agree, but what's even more retarded is the idea of then inviting them back. ####### is the point of sending them home, then? LAWL, it's like, "oh you broke the law so now we're gonna punish you to absolve us of our own sins of complicity. Oops, please come back, we need you."

...only explanation is that this provision is an attempt to appease those who think that offering citizenship to those who came here illegally is outrageously unfair.

[Artegal 1]

I meant by legalizing/decriminalizing drugs it would bring it out in the open so it can be regulated. Cheap, low skilled labor is a commodity and like drugs, most of the cheap labor is coming from outside this country illegally.

The conventional definition of a free market capitalist is one who opposes restrictions or regulations on the market. Milton Friedman believed the market would regulate itself through competition and consumer choice is the main driving force. That's why corporations will buy out the competition - to circumvent consumer choice. Do you have a different definition?

As for NAFTA and the influx of immigration - here's just one POV from Economist's View (Hardly a Liberal Slant):

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis..._and_illeg.html

Mexico has shed nearly 30% of its farm jobs since the trade pact went into effect, according to government statistics. That translates into 2.8 million farmers and millions more of their dependents fleeing their fields. Some have taken subsistence jobs in Mexico's cities, but many have relocated to the U.S. ....

NAFTA experts say negotiators from Mexico and the U.S. knew that rural families ... would be hard hit by the trade deal. The bet was that many of them would find work in Mexico's burgeoning maquiladora export factories. But ... Mexico has lost more than four times as many farm jobs over the last 12 years as it gained in export manufacturing positions, in part because of relentless competition from China...

You make the mistake of assuming there is a link between Trade Pacts and Illegal immigration, when if anything the loss of agricultural jobs is because of technology and economic development. When the American South was largely agrarian there was a need for cheap labor—from slaves, share croppers, child labor, to migrant immigrants (legal or undocumented), but eventually sectors in the American South developed new economies such as textile mills, light industrial, to skilled and service industries, the need for as much cheap labor in the agricultural market sector dropped. There was not a single trade treaty that suddenly caused the end of farming jobs.

As far as your reference to the drug policy and how we should make the immigration policy similar you still are in error. For you state that the Drug policy should be decriminalized and put out in the open and then regulated. But in fact there are ample laws, regulations, and policies in effect that are regulating the drug trade, and in your correlation to the immigration policy—we all know the scope of rules, regulations and policies that exist with the visa process. Immigration is out in the open--its not illlegal to immigrate to the USA--its illegal to immigrate illegally. Just as its not illegal for me to take my blood pressure medicine--but it is illegal for me to take the medicine without a perscription.

But even in an “open” market there is and will be those that will try and circumvent any regulation or measures taken. This is why there are black and gray markets in areas where trade in a commodity is regulated. From market manipulation in creating artificial shortages in energy, to selectively not harvesting or slaughtering livestock to manipulate the price, to hiring undocumented workers to reduce payroll tax, wage, and benefit cost, to the smuggling by tourist of prescription drugs from Mexico and Canada, to counterfeit/pirated software, books, and music, why even moon shiners continue to produce alternatives to the out in the open alcohol market.

But I suppose if you did decriminalize the illicit drug trade then a lot of the South American and Asian illegal immigrants might return to their countries of birth--as certainly there would be huge amount of work in the agricultural sector to produce coca leaf, cannabis, and opium.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally

And you are prepared to deal with the economically disruptive effects of doing so? You are prepared to uproot families that have been here for years, including the lives of young children?

Either you don't realize the impact of what you're suggesting, or....

Yes I am. It's not my problem that they have been here illegally so long that they have roots. Just because they have gotten away with it for years does not forgive the crime. They should go home. All of them. Then we can institute a guest worker program and they can come back.

I have two problems with that.

1. By letting them in (loose to non-existent border controls) and letting them stay (by not having stronger employer sanctions to begin with, by allowing Mexican consular cards, etc.), this country is complicit in their crime. That means you, I, Steven, all of us. We're complicit by the very fact that we enabled them. To punish them now is shameless political scapegoating.

2. To uproot families the way you are describing is immoral.

You complicity argument doesn't fly. These things are not within my control or yours. It's like claiming that I am somehow complicit in the Enron accounting scandal since I willingly consumed energy. Talking about Enron: Is it also immoral to cut these guys off their illegal profits seeing that they were pretty used to them?

If you insist that you are not complicit, then I hope you can agree that the Federal Government has been, and is. They enabled this mass illegal migration of people for so long, do you really think it is just for the same Federal Government to now send them packing? I don't think it is.

BTW - you are complicit. We all are. They cook in almost every restaurant, they clean in almost every office building, they pick the grapes you eat and build the homes you live in. You don't have to have played an active role in arranging all this to be complicit. You are, we all are.

1) Yes, I actually think it is just for the same federal gov't to send them packing. Do you think the government would be justified in ending a tax evasion scheme that has gone on for years or should the gov't just let the tax cheats keep their loot and let them continue to evade taxes seeing that they've been able to defraud the gov't for a long time?

2) Your complicity argument still doesn't fly. It did not the first time and all you did was repeat the same nonsense. Your argument doesn't gain strength just because you repeat it. Are you complicit in the Enron accounting scandal?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't care what anyone's rationale for their various positions on this issue are. The idea of sending the immigrants home and then inviting them back is just...retarded.

Yes it is. Once sent back, those aliens should fall under the same rules as anyone else that wishes to come to America. Seeing that they've been unlawfully present for more than 365 days, they don't need to bother applying for any visa of any kind for the next 10 years. That's the "punishment" that applies to anyone else that stayed here past their welcome and it should not be different for anyone that did not just overstay their welcome but came without being welcome in the first place.

[JoeMama 0]

I don't care what anyone's rationale for their various positions on this issue are. The idea of sending the immigrants home and then inviting them back is just...retarded.

Just sending them back to Mexico itself is retarded. Where will these people go - particularly the ones who've been here several years? What about the children that have been born here? It's just a completely irrational and asinine idea - I can't believe that intelligent Americans are even entertaining the idea - except that they've blindly accepted the rhetoric and like parrots just keep repeating it over and over..."Send them home." It would be one of the biggest humanitarian crisis this continent ever faced not to mention the astronomical cost of rounding them up and deporting them. Pipe dreams.

I agree, but what's even more retarded is the idea of then inviting them back. ####### is the point of sending them home, then? LAWL, it's like, "oh you broke the law so now we're gonna punish you to absolve us of our own sins of complicity. Oops, please come back, we need you."

eta: I think it's clear that this idiotic "send them back" mantra must have permeated the general consciousness deeply, because why the hell else would that immigration bill have that "touch back" plan? I guess Americans demand that people go home.... oh, and then come back. Let's admit what our lawmakers already know--we need them--and let them stay but give them visas and force employers to pay them better. I

Don't rope all of us Americans into demanding illegals go home and then just to come back. I wouldn't bother inviting them back! They can get the hell out and stay out! I don't need 'em for squat!

Edited May 28, 2007 by JoeMama

[Heracles 417]

Cheap labor is only cheap to the employer. To the social support systems, they are costly because they get sick, commit crimes, reproduce and want to be educated. When they become legalized (please God, no!) they will also want even more of what you have. If you have actually paid attention to what is in this new legislative "compromise", it's clear that our elected representatives are willing to give them MORE than we have because too many of us are asleep at the wheel and have been for too long.

How many of you have expressed your views to your federal and state representatives re this issue? I have, plenty, and will continue to!

Very well said.. It is a joke to be honest. We have so may people in the US barely making ends meet yet a small minority and the rich are actually suggesting we allow all of these illegal immigrants to remain here permanently.

Nonetheless, Are the pro amnesty congress members and the president proposing any measures to prevent this from happening again in the future, if amnesty is given after all?

Will they dramatically increase the fines and propose possible jail time for managers / directors who employ illegal immigrants?

Will they actually secure the borders?

Will they reform immigration? For example, America is one of few developed nations where someone young cannot even come here on a working holiday..

Will they throw out and/or jail repeat immigration offenders?

Edited May 28, 2007 by Infidel

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Profiteers who could not care less about Tthe U.S. and it's citizenry hasve an incessant need/desire for cheap, unregulated and easily exploitable labor ...

There, Steven. I completed the point you were looking to make to fit it better into reality. Now, given that reality, no amount of work visas and no amnesty is going to change that. In other words, whatever you do in terms of providing "cheap" labor, it ain't gonna be cheap enough and profiteers will look for ways to fulfill their desire to shamelessly exploit other human beings beyond what's legally possible. Those here legally are not the prey these profiteers are looking for. You gotta lock them up and seize their illegal profits which they gained by exploiting fellow human beings. That is how you re-establish fairness in the labor market and as a welcome side-effect, illegal immigration will become a non-issue. No jobs for illegals = no illegal migrants.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I want the illegals to go home because they are here illegally

And you are prepared to deal with the economically disruptive effects of doing so? You are prepared to uproot families that have been here for years, including the lives of young children?

Either you don't realize the impact of what you're suggesting, or....

Yes I am. It's not my problem that they have been here illegally so long that they have roots. Just because they have gotten away with it for years does not forgive the crime. They should go home. All of them. Then we can institute a guest worker program and they can come back.

I have two problems with that.

1. By letting them in (loose to non-existent border controls) and letting them stay (by not having stronger employer sanctions to begin with, by allowing Mexican consular cards, etc.), this country is complicit in their crime. That means you, I, Steven, all of us. We're complicit by the very fact that we enabled them. To punish them now is shameless political scapegoating.

2. To uproot families the way you are describing is immoral.

You complicity argument doesn't fly. These things are not within my control or yours. It's like claiming that I am somehow complicit in the Enron accounting scandal since I willingly consumed energy. Talking about Enron: Is it also immoral to cut these guys off their illegal profits seeing that they were pretty used to them?

If you insist that you are not complicit, then I hope you can agree that the Federal Government has been, and is. They enabled this mass illegal migration of people for so long, do you really think it is just for the same Federal Government to now send them packing? I don't think it is.

BTW - you are complicit. We all are. They cook in almost every restaurant, they clean in almost every office building, they pick the grapes you eat and build the homes you live in. You don't have to have played an active role in arranging all this to be complicit. You are, we all are.

1) Yes, I actually think it is just for the same federal gov't to send them packing. Do you think the government would be justified in ending a tax evasion scheme that has gone on for years or should the gov't just let the tax cheats keep their loot and let them continue to evade taxes seeing that they've been able to defraud the gov't for a long time?

2) Your complicity argument still doesn't fly. It did not the first time and all you did was repeat the same nonsense. Your argument doesn't gain strength just because you repeat it. Are you complicit in the Enron accounting scandal?

Come on we are a little complicit - I mean - we haven't elected public representatives who have taken any sort of strong position on this issue. I mean has a candidate's stance on illegal immigration been a deciding factor in any of the last presidential elections?