Immigration Rallies Draw Thousands Nationwide

[Bruzilla]

So far, Bruzilla, you are in favor of foreigners coming over here, indefinitely and undocumented. You are in favor of letting religion trump law. AND you are in favor of foreign governments that fund terrorism controlling our ports.

I disagree with every single one of those positions, and if it makes you feel smarter to call me a bigot, oh well.

It does... and thanks!

 

[Pete]

Yep... that's what they say. "We're not anti-Mexican, we're against all illegals, wherever they come from!" Yep... I've heard lines similar to that coming from the mouths of every anti-illegal-alien person on TV. But then when you listen further to their points, for some reason the name "Vincente Fox" always comes up. The states of Arizona, New Mexico, and California always come up. The problems of hospitals and schools near the Mexican border always come up. I've yet to hear anyone complaining about the impact of illegal Chinese imigrants on hospitals in central CA, nor the effect on schools of illegal Middle Eastern immigrants in the New England area and NY. Why is that? There are thousands of illegal Pakistanis coming in every year, but I only hear President Musharraf's name mentioned in connection with anti-terrosist efforts - never with anti-illegal immigration efforts. Yet Vincente Fox's name is always mentioned. Now why is that?

And when do we hear about illegal immigration issues the most? Usually after some school district has made the news for offering spanish-speaking classes or wanting to teach Hispanic students in spanish-only classes. Usually after some Mexican imigrants have turned up dead after getting lost in the sand. Definately after Americans dare to march under Mexican flags in protest of US policy. We have hundreds of undocumented Middle Easterners, those most likely to be terrorists, being detained and released at airports and seaports all around out country, who disappear after their release and never return for their deportation hearings, and yet you hear about these folks maybe once for every 100 or so times you hear or read about Mexican illegals. Now why is that?

If you think that most of the anti-illegal-alien crowd isn't focused on Mexicans you're only fooling yourself.

Bru come on man Does the USA share a porous border with Pakistan or India? Illegals from Mexico are the vast majority of the illegals here. To ignore that and pull the race card and call people bigots for daring to say the truth is very Sharptonesque of you.

 

[ylexot]

Back to my analogy, which do you treat first, the gaping wound or the scratch?

 

[Pete]

..when the last illegal has been hit in the ass by the door on the way out, who's dad gonna hire?

He is going to hire the $15 per hour guy or the $18 an hour guy and that is fine with me. So if I have to add $5000 extra in labor to have a $150,000 house built, or an extra .70 for a head of lettuce, so be it, that is the price so that is the price.

The main point is that he will not have to compete with a group of illegals who live 40 to a doublewide, and work for dirt, no taxes, no withholding, no workmans comp, no license. Fair above board competition is cool, unfair is not.

The problem is not a shortage of people to work, it is a shortage of people to work at dirt wages. American workers would rather collect welfare and unemployment than hang drywall for $8 an hour because that is the wage it would take to beat the illegals. Employers have been so burdened with crap they can save money hiring illegals and treating them like crap.

Workman's comp? Yea right, if Julio gets a rafter dropped on his head the foreman does a drive by at the emergency room and boots him out with the instructions "You don't know me, you got hit on the head by a tree branch, you got it!", the government will pay the tab.

This is a zero sum game. Someone wins, someone loses. In this case Mexico and the illegals win, that means we lose.

 

[2ndAmendment]

By the way, I've still yet to hear anyone answer the core question of this debate by saying "Yes! I am willing to deal with increased prices for goods and services, and the loss of segments of our agricultural and small business economic sectors, and pay much higher taxes to either give tax credits to immigrants or to build and maintain a wall in perpetuity in order to get rid of illegal immigrants and to keep them out."

Sorry, that argument no longer flys. We have already determined that your pool of cheap labor from illegal aliens, no matter what their ethnic linage, is all gone with the current legislation, so you will get higher prices either way. Did you conveniently forget that? So do we want another 10,000,000+ Democratic voters or not is the question. I say no.

 

[Bruzilla]

Because it's ridiculous, that's why.

Some things are just crystal clear, black and white, plain as the nose on your face - and anyone who can't see it is either suffering from a mental disorder or is being deliberately obtuse.

Illegal immigration is one of them.

It is not unreasonable to want foreigners who come to this country to be documented. If you came here from Sweden to go to college, there would be a paper trail on you, with country of origin, purpose of visit, etc. Hell, if you came here from England to visit NYC for a week, you would be required to have a passport and go through Customs.

So any argument that "requiring Mexicans to be documented is racism and bigotry" is just ignorant. And anyone who spews it is ignorant as well.

Nobody has said that Mexicans shouldn't be allowed to come to this country. (Well, maybe some people have, but it's only out of knee-jerk frustration.) What we've BEEN SAYING is that they should have to do it JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD WHO COMES HERE and provide documentation, purpose, etc. They should not be allowed to just come to this country ILLEGALLY and disappear. That is foolish and dangerous.

So, Bruzilla, your charge of "you're a bigot! " rolls right off my back. This issue is crystal clear to me, so the slams of those who are in favor of the foolish and dangerous don't mean a hill of squat to me.

You see Vrai, you just don't get what I'm talking about. I'm not a fan of illegal immigration, or not controlling our borders, or not investing millions to hunt terrorists at our borders. No... what I am is a realist. After working for close to 20 years as a human performance analyst, I focus on outcomes of human efforts as well as the human efforts themselves. So when you get all crazy about closing borders or chasing out immigrants, that's just nifty. I take those ideas and say "ok. So what's likely going to happen when we do that, and are we going to be able to live with those outcomes?"

What I see happening is what I've posted over, and over, and over, and over again. Much higher taxes, much higher costs of consumer goods and services, business collapses in agriculture and small service industries, no increase to the tax base, etc. And, I don't feel that Americans are going to be very happy when these things happen, and there will be all manner of gnashing of teeth and questions of "how did this happen?" once it does. So, what I've been asking is before we go rushing off and acting on what are some legitimate, and some illegitimate, concerns, maybe we should think about if the cure is going to be worse than the illness. If you think that the problems of illegal immigration are the worse of the two situations, more power to you. I think the proposed cure is going to be worse, so more power to me.

I'm sorry but I look upon your views the same way that I looked at people in the 1990s who weer certain that closing down most of our military bases and doing away with most of our troops would save billions of dollars, without thinking that billions more would be lost due to soaring unemployment, loss of secondary industries, inflation, home value disasters, etc. These folks were overly fixated on one particular thing, saving money, and not on the follow-on impacts of their decisions. And you guys are acting the same way... ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, TERRORISTS, UNSECURED BORDERS, etc.!!! Okay, I agree with you (except for the terrorists), but my question, again, is are you willing to accept the likely outcomes of doing away with illegal immigrants? If you support the fence/wall concept, are you willing to give the order to gun down unarmed civilians who try to get over/through it the way the Soviets did? If you can answer yes to both of those questions, more power to you. If you can't answer yes, then maybe you need to rethink your position.

 

[Bruzilla]

Bru come on man Does the USA share a porous border with Pakistan or India? Illegals from Mexico are the vast majority of the illegals here. To ignore that and pull the race card and call people bigots for daring to say the truth is very Sharptonesque of you.

Please stay on point. Thanks! The issue in this case is that anti-illegal immigration folks are not overly obsessed with Mexico. I say they are, others say they aren't. It shouldn't matter who we have a porous border with or not, the fact is that when you listen to these anti-illegal immigration groups talk they are always focused on Mexico.

 

[2ndAmendment]

..when the last illegal has been hit in the ass by the door on the way out, who's dad gonna hire?

Legal workers, just like everyone else, and the playing field will then be level for competition.

 

[Bruzilla]

Sorry, that argument no longer flys. We have already determined that your pool of cheap labor from illegal aliens, no matter what their ethnic linage, is all gone with the current legislation, so you will get higher prices either way. Did you conveniently forget that? So do we want another 10,000,000+ Democratic voters or not is the question. I say no.

No, I didn't forget that. My question is strictly a general one, i.e., how do you, 2A feel about this question. None of us knows exactly what the Congress will or won't do, so I'm just asking are you willing to accept these outcomes? If you are say yes and more power to you. If you can't say yes, then maybe you need to rethink your position.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You see Vrai, you just don't get what I'm talking about. I'm not a fan of illegal immigration, or not controlling our borders, or not investing millions to hunt terrorists at our borders. No... what I am is a realist. After working for close to 20 years as a human performance analyst, I focus on outcomes of human efforts as well as the human efforts themselves. ....

So you are one of the guys the government and companies waste their money on studying things that could easily be solved by anyone with a lick of common sense.

 

[Bruzilla]

He is going to hire the $15 per hour guy or the $18 an hour guy and that is fine with me. So if I have to add $5000 extra in labor to have a $150,000 house built, or an extra .70 for a head of lettuce, so be it, that is the price so that is the price.

The problem is not a shortage of people to work, it is a shortage of people to work at dirt wages. American workers would rather collect welfare and unemployment than hang drywall for $8 an hour because that is the wage it would take to beat the illegals. Employers have been so burdened with crap they can save money hiring illegals and treating them like crap.

Workman's comp? Yea right, if Julio gets a rafter dropped on his head the foreman does a drive by at the emergency room and boots him out with the instructions "You don't know me, you got hit on the head by a tree branch, you got it!", the government will pay the tab.

This is a zero sum game. Someone wins, someone loses. In this case Mexico and the illegals win, that means we lose.

You see people... it's just that easy! Pete here says that if he has to pay extra for his lettuce or his house, then so be it! Thank you Pete! That ladies and gentlemen is an example of a guy who understands the real issue. I would like to also ask if you would be willing to give the order to open fire Soviet style on a bunch of unarmed civilains trying to climb our wall? This isn't meant as a values question, I'm just wondering how many think that's the way to go if we are to have a wall that's as effective as the Berlin wall.

 

[Bruzilla]

So you are one of the guys the government and companies waste their money on studying things that could easily be solved by anyone with a lick of common sense.

Do you know how rare a "lick of common sense" is? It's pretty damn rare! You would be amazed at how absent it is, especially when working on expansive and complex projects like say... developing immigration policy or designing a wall around the US. There are so many things that make absolute perfect sense on papaer, but then once the human elements gets in there and f's things up it's like "WTF were the people who designed this thinking about???"

 

[2ndAmendment]

Please stay on point. Thanks! The issue in this case is that anti-illegal immigration folks are not overly obsessed with Mexico. I say they are, others say they aren't. It shouldn't matter who we have a porous border with or not, the fact is that when you listen to these anti-illegal immigration groups talk they are always focused on Mexico.

And I say if Mexicans are the majority of the problem, then that is where the focus should be.

You, as the high paid realist, should realize that you don't concentrate your efforts on the part of the problem that is going to yield a plus 10% result. You focus your efforts on the part of the problem that is going to yield a plus 90% result. In this case, the BIG problem is illegal immigration from Mexico. That is not bigotry. It is realism.

 

[Bruzilla]

And I say if Mexicans are the majority of the problem, then that is where the focus should be.

You, as the high paid realist, should realize that you don't concentrate your efforts on the part of the problem that is going to yield a plus 10% result. You focus your efforts on the part of the problem that is going to yield a plus 90% result. In this case, the BIG problem is illegal immigration from Mexico. That is not bigotry. It is realism.

As usual, you miss the point. I agree with your ROI statement, but that's not the point. The original statement that I was objecting to is that anti-illegal immigration folks are focused on all illegals, not just Mexicans. I'm not saying there isn't a good reason for that focus, only that it does exist and saying that these folks aren't focused on Mexico is not true.

 

[Pete]

You see people... it's just that easy! Pete here says that if he has to pay extra for his lettuce or his house, then so be it! Thank you Pete! That ladies and gentlemen is an example of a guy who understands the real issue. I would like to also ask if you would be willing to give the order to open fire Soviet style on a bunch of unarmed civilains trying to climb our wall? This isn't meant as a values question, I'm just wondering how many think that's the way to go if we are to have a wall that's as effective as the Berlin wall.

Who says that it has to be that drmatic. A fence, wall monitored is not a bad thing. Who says they have to shoot people? aprehend them and send them back, 100 times if needed.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You see people... it's just that easy! Pete here says that if he has to pay extra for his lettuce or his house, then so be it! Thank you Pete! That ladies and gentlemen is an example of a guy who understands the real issue. I would like to also ask if you would be willing to give the order to open fire Soviet style on a bunch of unarmed civilains trying to climb our wall? This isn't meant as a values question, I'm just wondering how many think that's the way to go if we are to have a wall that's as effective as the Berlin wall.

I'll pay extra for my lettuce if that is what it takes to close the "door".

Now you are talking like a guy with no common sense. You don't need to shoot people. Razor wire properly laid and stacked will deter all but the most determined. It is not likely that those trying to get in illegally will have Bangalore torpedoes.

The fence goes hand and hand with refusing services to illegals, controlling money sent out side U.S. borders, not automatically giving citizenship to children born to illegals while here in the U.S., fines and confiscation of property of illegals found here, fines and imprisonment of those that knowingly provide services and work for illegals.

Common sense. I guess on this subject, you have none.

 

[2ndAmendment]

As usual, you miss the point. I agree with your ROI statement, but that's not the point. The original statement that I was objecting to is that anti-illegal immigration folks are focused on all illegals, not just Mexicans. I'm not saying there isn't a good reason for that focus, only that it does exist and saying that these folks aren't focused on Mexico is not true.

Come on. Now you are just arguing to hear your lips flap.

 

[Larry Gude]

Snap!!!!

He is going to hire the $15 per hour guy or the $18 an hour guy and that is fine with me. So if I have to add $5000 extra in labor to have a $150,000 house built, or an extra .70 for a head of lettuce, so be it, that is the price so that is the price.
The main point is that he will not have to compete with a group of illegals who live 40 to a doublewide, and work for dirt, no taxes, no withholding, no workmans comp, no license. Fair above board competition is cool, unfair is not.

The problem is not a shortage of people to work, it is a shortage of people to work at dirt wages. American workers would rather collect welfare and unemployment than hang drywall for $8 an hour because that is the wage it would take to beat the illegals. Employers have been so burdened with crap they can save money hiring illegals and treating them like crap.

Workman's comp? Yea right, if Julio gets a rafter dropped on his head the foreman does a drive by at the emergency room and boots him out with the instructions "You don't know me, you got hit on the head by a tree branch, you got it!", the government will pay the tab.

This is a zero sum game. Someone wins, someone loses. In this case Mexico and the illegals win, that means we lose.

...the unsuspecting prey steps into the trap.

Go ahead, take 10-20 million people out of the labor pool, the 5% unemployed labor pool. 3% in Maryland.

Try $20-30 dollars an hour. An extra $50-100 per man per day.Multiply that times how many tradesmen per house; 10? 20? So, add a bunch more to the tab.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

Legal workers, just like everyone else, and the playing field will then be level for competition.

And instread of $10 an hour labor, glad to have the job amd whatever it is y'all think we're losing in social services, $10 an hour, we'll have us ARMIES of people (remember the whopping 5% unemployed, right?) who are presently sitting on their asses, raring to go...back to bed.

Call them when it's $30 an hour. They might be able to come in for some afternoons.

Yippeee!!!

 

[vraiblonde]

are you willing to accept the likely outcomes of doing away with illegal immigrants? If you support the fence/wall concept, are you willing to give the order to gun down unarmed civilians who try to get over/through it the way the Soviets did? If you can answer yes to both of those questions, more power to you. If you can't answer yes, then maybe you need to rethink your position.

Yes, to #1.

To #2, why is gunning down unarmed civilians the only answer? Is that what they do with other non-violent criminals in this country - just gun them down?

Anyway, I don't support a fence or wall. That's a little too Soviet/China for me. I think we should have a solid border patrol and enforce the law. I don't see what's so unreasonable about that.