Amnesty? What amnesty? Critics substitute fear for facts

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

economicallh speaking, they are wanted and needed here. those who claim otherwise are fooling themselves.

Immigrants are wanted and needed. Foreign workers are wanted and needed. Illegal aliens are neither wanted nor needed except by a small minority of profiteers. America would live and function without them. Quite a bit better no doubt, seeing that they net a burden to the tune of 10,000,000,000.00 p.a. to the taxpayer.

The part in red is your opinion - which you're entitled to - just don't confuse it as fact.

Do you have facts to the contrary? Seeing that you're not disputing the net burden I quoted, it's not much of a stretch to say that we'd be better off not spending that kind of money on folks that have no right to be here.

Edited June 10, 2007 by ET-US2004

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

actually i dont defend the bill.. im not even aware of all the points.. i really don't care if they deport them or not..

That's not exactly what I remember from other discussions here in OT but if you say that you have no opinion on the issue one way or the other then I take your word for it.

coulda fooled me

lol.. yea, i dont have an opinion, but wherever there's racist remarks (not this topic), or people who want to violate their basic rights, i'll have an opinion.. as a matter of fact, y'all right, an amnesty would just bring more illegals next time.. and since I'm not even a citizen, I really can't have a saying here, cuz it's the Americans government, not a residents government, when it's my turn to become an USC, then it'll be different.. but, it's not the same proposing a right way to deport them, than just heard them like cattle, or beat them up in the raids or stuff like that, that yeah, probly is an expcetion more than a rule, but still..

Yeah, it's actually south of the border where the inhumane treatment of illegal aliens (such as you describe above and worse) is the rule rather than the exception. That's one of the things I still don't quite grasp, how citizens of a nation that abuses the living hell out of illegal aliens in their country claim these precious rights for themselves when they're the illegal aliens in someone else's country. Lacking a bit of credibility here.

it's not the all the citizens.. it's the police mainly.. which, well, I wouldn't even trust them either... but that doesn't cover the fact that ICE has also abused the illegal aliens in the USA.. like the Swift plant raid in GA, ICE breaking into houses withouth warrants...

Again, pedroh, you're confusing the exceptions with the broader reality which is that illegals are better off here than they'd be back home - I suspect they wouldn't be here if that wasn't the case. Besides, how come the illegals are so knowledgable in regards to our laws when they protect them but either ignorant or rather just plain dismissive of them when they're not in their favor? I have little, if any, sympathy for folks that pizz on any selection of our laws to then hide behind another.

Edited June 10, 2007 by ET-US2004

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

economicallh speaking, they are wanted and needed here. those who claim otherwise are fooling themselves.

Immigrants are wanted and needed. Foreign workers are wanted and needed. Illegal aliens are neither wanted nor needed except by a small minority of profiteers. America would live and function without them. Quite a bit better no doubt, seeing that they net a burden to the tune of 10,000,000,000.00 p.a. to the taxpayer.

The part in red is your opinion - which you're entitled to - just don't confuse it as fact.

Do you have facts to the contrary?

My point is that it would be impossible to qualify that statement.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

economicallh speaking, they are wanted and needed here. those who claim otherwise are fooling themselves.

Immigrants are wanted and needed. Foreign workers are wanted and needed. Illegal aliens are neither wanted nor needed except by a small minority of profiteers. America would live and function without them. Quite a bit better no doubt, seeing that they net a burden to the tune of 10,000,000,000.00 p.a. to the taxpayer.

The part in red is your opinion - which you're entitled to - just don't confuse it as fact.

Do you have facts to the contrary?

My point is that it would be impossible to qualify that statement.

Short of turning back time and not letting this happen, yes. But so is the original statement I responded to. From a perspective of their fiscal impact, however, I think the numbers speak volumes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

$10bn is a lot of money. The question then becomes - do illegals benefit the economy enough to outweigh the massive burden on our public services. I honestly doubt it.

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

$10bn is a lot of money. The question then becomes - do illegals benefit the economy enough to outweigh the massive burden on our public services. I honestly doubt it.

Reinhard stated that they (illegals) are neither wanted nor needed...... - that's speculative at best. Reasonable solutions require avoiding speculations, while focusing on facts.

Edited June 10, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

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

Here's an example of reasonable dialogue:

from - Immigration: The Newest “Third Rail”

By Jason Steck

Left and right have some legitimate points to make on the issue of immigration. From the left comes a real concern with the economic plight of immigrants. Illegal immigrants do not brave scorching deserts and predatory human traffickers because fruit-picking and meatpacking are such glamorous and rewarding careers. They act out of desperation, seeking to survive and, yes, access what at least used to be known as the “land of opportunity”. Contrary to what some demagogues among the anti-immigration right say, there is no evidence that immigration generally — even illegal immigration specifically — leads to any general increase in crime. Similarly, research has shown that immigration’s economic benefits likely outweigh its costs, particularly through its promise of ameliorating the looming demographic crisis in Social Security and Medicare funding.

A legitimate concern of the right does remain, however. Uncontrolled illegal immigration threatens to maintain and expand gaping security vulnerabilities, as a border so uncontrolled as to be incapable of stopping impoverished economic refugees is likely also not able to stop infiltration of drugs, weapons, or even al-Qaeda members.

Between these positions, however, there is room for middle ground. Increased border security, improved documentation requirements, and greater resources for enforcement can address security concerns while at the same time allowing for a more reliable and comprehensible process for economic refugees to access a vibrant American economy on their northern border. Yet, this middle ground is often flooded by extremist rhetoric, particularly from the right. Any hint of accommodation towards the 11+ million illegal immigrants who are already living, working, and paying taxes in the United States is condemned as “amnesty”. Dark tales are circulated of predatory immigrants targeting American women and children. And some even allege an intrinsic cultural incompatibility, casting Latino immigration as a threat to our very national identity.

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/centr...est-third-rail/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Problem is the middle-road often appears to involve relativising the issue into insignificance so that we're basically stuck with the status-quo.

A permanent (radical) solution is needed for this long-term problem - its not rocket science. But we're not even at that point yet because noone in government can put aside partisan hackery.

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

Problem is the middle-road often appears to involve relativising the issue into insignificance so that we're basically stuck with the status-quo.

A permanent (radical) solution is needed for this long-term problem - its not rocket science. But we're not even at that point yet because noone in government can put aside partisan hackery.

What exactly in concrete terms is the crisis, beyond Mexican immigrants being here illegally? Take away that element (offering temporary visas) and then people claim it's unfair. Step beyond that and we're in this endless befuddlement of speculation that points to much ado about nothing.

In the larger context of things, this issue is encompassed under migration, which happens - everywhere. While some refuse to make any difference between illegal immigrants, they refuse to lump it under all immigration.

I realize what I say here is extremely unpopular on this immigration website, but I resent when those that don't agree say they grow tired or sick of hearing it. Popular notions need to be challenged with even more fervor than unpopular ones.

Edited June 10, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - but I'm not sure I understand the objections to securing the southern border (which not only is an entry point for illegal immigrants, but is also a major route for drug trafficking) and enforcing Labor laws forbidding companies to hire undocumented workers.

Those are tangible solutions IMO. Refocussing the debate on all those already in the country is missing the point - because we can't deal with that problem until the wider issue is dealt with. Until then we're just sticking our fingers in the dike.

[GaryC 7]

Problem is the middle-road often appears to involve relativising the issue into insignificance so that we're basically stuck with the status-quo.

A permanent (radical) solution is needed for this long-term problem - its not rocket science. But we're not even at that point yet because noone in government can put aside partisan hackery.

What exactly in concrete terms is the crisis, beyond Mexican immigrants being here illegally? Take away that element (offering temporary visas) and then people claim it's unfair. Step beyond that and we're in this endless befuddlement of speculation that points to much ado about nothing.

In the larger context of things, this issue is encompassed under migration, which happens - everywhere. While some refuse to make any difference between illegal immigrants, they refuse to lump it under all immigration.

I realize what I say here is extremely unpopular on this immigration website, but I resent when those that don't agree say they grow tired or sick of hearing it. Popular notions need to be challenged with even more fervor than unpopular ones.

First of all it isn't just the Mexicans that are here illegally. They come from all over the world. I think that is where we rub Pedroh the wrong way by characterizing them all as Mexicans.

Your missing the whole point that those of us that don't want an amnesty are making. We have between 10 and 20 million people here that have not been documented. We have no idea who they are, where they are and what they are doing. Just because the majority of them are just looking for work is besides the point. Some of them are criminals, drug dealers, human traffickers and some could be terrorists. We just don't know and that is the whole point. The only way we can be sure who we have in this country is to have as many of them as possible leave by what ever means we can, secure our border and only then start a guest worker program. Most of us have no problem with temporary workers. We just want them to be documented.

[JODO 2]

June 10, 2007

Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed

By JULIA PRESTONWASHINGTON, Mich., June 8 — The undoing of the immigration bill in the Senate this week had many players, but none more effective than angry voters like Monique Thibodeaux, who joined a nationwide campaign to derail it.

Mrs. Thibodeaux, an office manager at a towing company here in suburban Detroit, became politically active as she never had before. Guided by conservative Internet organizations, she made calls and sent e-mail messages to senators across the country and pushed her friends to do the same.

"These people came in the wrong way, so they don't belong here, period," Mrs. Thibodeaux, a Republican, said of some 12 million illegal immigrants who would have been granted a path to citizenship under the Senate bill.

"In my heart I knew it was wrong for our country," she said of the measure.

Supporters of the legislation defended it as an imperfect but pragmatic solution to the difficult problem of illegal immigration. Public opinion polls, including a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted last month, showed broad support among Americans for the bill's major provisions.

But the legislation sparked a furious rebellion among many Republican and even some Democratic voters, who were linked by the Internet and encouraged by radio talk show hosts. Their outrage and activism surged to full force after Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who was an author of the bill, suggested early this week that support for the measure seemed to be growing. The assault on lawmakers in Washington was relentless. In a crucial vote Thursday night, the bill's supporters, including President Bush, fell short by 15 votes. While there is a possibility the legislation could be revived later this year, there was a glow of victory among opponents on Friday.

"Technologically enhanced grass-roots activism is what turned this around, people empowered by the Internet and talk radio," said Colin A. Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring, a conservative group.

Mr. Hanna suggested the passion and commitment were on the side of the opponents.

"The opposition to the amnesty plan is so much more intense than the intensity of the supporters," said Mr. Hanna, speaking of the bill's provisions to grant legal status to qualifying illegal immigrants, which the authors of the legislation insisted was not amnesty.

In the end, supporters conceded that they were outmaneuvered by opponents who boiled down their complaints to that single hot-button word, repeated often and viscerally on talk radio programs and blogs.

"It's a lot easier to yell one word, 'amnesty,' and it takes a little more to explain, 'No, it's not, and if you don't do anything you have a silent amnesty,' " said Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, a Democrat who backed the measure.

Christopher Sabatini, senior director of policy at the Americas Society/Council of the Americas, which follows Hispanic immigration, described the bill as "born an orphan in terms of popular support."

"You got the sense of a deafening silence from the supporters, and the roar of the opposition," Mr. Sabatini said.

For Mrs. Thibodeaux and others on her side, the immigration debate was a battle for the soul of the nation because it seemed to divert taxpayer-financed resources to cater to foreigners who had not come to this country by legal means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/washingt...?pagewanted=all

Edited June 10, 2007 by JODO

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

$10bn is a lot of money. The question then becomes - do illegals benefit the economy enough to outweigh the massive burden on our public services. I honestly doubt it.

Reinhard stated that they (illegals) are neither wanted nor needed...... - that's speculative at best. Reasonable solutions require avoiding speculations, while focusing on facts.

If it's speculation whether they're wanted or needed, then it's speculation either way. I didn't bring this into the debate. All I am saying is that $10bn p.a. is an expense the American taxpayer can do without. That's a fact.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sure - but I'm not sure I understand the objections to securing the southern border (which not only is an entry point for illegal immigrants, but is also a major route for drug trafficking) and enforcing Labor laws forbidding companies to hire undocumented workers.

There are powerful political interests that are opposed to both (1) effectively securing the southern border; and (2) enforcing and strengthening sanctions on employers that hire illegals.

If there weren't, both would be law by now. The American people, by and large, would support both measures.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - but I'm not sure I understand the objections to securing the southern border (which not only is an entry point for illegal immigrants, but is also a major route for drug trafficking) and enforcing Labor laws forbidding companies to hire undocumented workers.

There are powerful political interests that are opposed to both (1) effectively securing the southern border; and (2) enforcing and strengthening sanctions on employers that hire illegals.

If there weren't, both would be law by now. The American people, by and large, would support both measures.

I should have made it clearer - I was meant that in relation to certain comments in this thread.

I'm not sure I understand the objections to enforcing the borders and employment sanctions. As far as this thread goes - that's all that has been suggested (enforcing the law), but already the race argument has been tossed in there as has talk of mass deportation. Ad hominem is right - though not, I think, in the way Pedroh intended it. Seems to me that this topic in general (rather than this thread) is continually being derailed and into issues of presentation and rhetorical political correctness.