If OFIR can stop the Carousel of Information then surely the United States government, even being as incompetent it is, can stop illegal immigration. Try taxing and regulating it maybe.
The drag queen doesn't deserve anyones vote for President.
24 comments:
Anonymous
said...
uh...what's your point? Things have changed a little since 1996, don't you think? It's not inconceivable (nor is it wrong) for one to change their views in light of a changing world.
Thanks Daniel. This is an example why Giuliani has no business being president.
But the open border, amnesty crowd want to pass this pretender off to the party.
I say "No way!"
President Bush has 24% approval rating. Giuliani is the Bush candidate.
Republicans aren't going to win elections with a status quo candidate that takes the baton from a president with 24% approval.
So don't tell me Rudy is the only one that can beat Hillary.
Heck, Giuliani backed out of a 2000 U.S. Senate race against carpet bagger Hillary (yes, prostate cancer was a reason, but I suggest not the major reason he didn't run -- Rudy didn't think he could win).
So why can he win now?
There are really only two authentic border control candidates -- the rest are phony.
Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.
Both have credibility on "no amnesty" and border control.
Side note: Fred Thompson had a bad record on illegal immigration while Senator, so now he has changed his tune (because it's politcally expedient).
His new campaign manager Spencer Abraham (former Michigan Senator with also a bad voting record on illegal immigration) is a telling signal to the big money, open borders, amnesty crowd, that while Thompson talks tough on immigration, for the folks, he's winking to the big money in the back of the room.
I know Daniel supports Tancredo. I respect Tancredo. But he has even less chance than Hunter.
If border control Republicans can band together behind one candidate we can stop the Republican Party from stabbing us in the back.
I fought amnesty very hard. I'm not going to turn around and support an amnesty candidate. Period.
Duncan Hunter has won straw polls: Arizona, Texas, and come close in others, South Carolina.
Hunter has a complete platform.
Including trade and a strong military.
Hunter is the REAL Conservative (that has any shot at winning, with all due respect to Rep. Tancredo).
I know there're a lot of Tancredo backers, who read this blog. I respect you and your views.
Weigh the political realities.
We can stop Giuliani, who wants to pirate the Republican Party.
Giuliani is weak on other aspects of Sovereignty as well.
Daniel and the rest of you who actually believe in such things as virgin births, Christ surviving his own death, and noah's ark...when Giuliani gets the nod, PLEASE TROT OUT A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE!!!!
While I personally don't have a hard-on for Guilliani, I must agree with anon 1:59. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist when a politician changes their mind about an issue. If the "new view" is the result of new information, new situations, etc...then what is wrong with changing your mind about an issue? Better that than to be forever "STUCK ON STUPID" like Bush and his "24% Club." Of course, if the "change" is obvious pandering, then there's a problem.
To anon159pm: No, things have not changed that much since '96.
One, Guiliani to this very day supports "regularization," a code word for amnesty. The same code word McCain uses today.
Two, in '96 there was tremendous pressure for contolling immigration. A tough sounding law was passed, but there was Giuliani saying, "the border can't be controlled."
Nothing has changed since '96, but Giuliani's personal calculation of what will benefit him politically. Yet, still Giuliani is calling for amnesty...ops, er, I mean "regularization."
As we all know, amnesty will only encourage more illegal aliens to come over the border. So Giuliani's brash statement at the beginning of the tape is nothing but bullcrap.
Don't fall for it. Giuliani is a big time actor, better than Thompson. Giuliani is the son on of a small time Mafia enforcer.
Giuliani's law firm represents CITGO, the Venezuelan oil company controlled by Hugo Chavez, the dictator.
His law firm represents Cintra, the Spanish company that wants to build the Trans-Texas-Corridor, also known as, the NAFTA superhighway.
The Eastcoast establishment and open borders crowd want Giuliani.
Also known as neo-Rockefeller Republicans.
They will stab in the back, Social Conservatives and border control Conservatives, equally.
These neo-Rockefellers, also want to off-shore American production and jobs.
Giuliani is the king of pander: cross dressing, gay pride parades, suing gun manufacturers, sanctuary city.
Too late. We can't back out of NAFTA now, and Mexico seems to be holding the cards, seeing as our economy appears to be on thin ice.
Even if we had the resources to substantially cut-off illegal immigration, this would deal a substantial blow to Mexico's economy and they would likely respond by levying stiff tarrifs on all goods and money moving in and out of that country on a daily basis. This would be a crushing blow to the U.S. economy, making U.S. social service expenditures on illegals seem like a drop in the bucket. Surely there is a far more diplomatic way of going about fixing the problem.
For those of you who complain that Mexico shouldn't be so corrupt and should work on developing their own economy, you obviously don't know Mexico very well. They are only 80 years removed from a devastating revolution. 80 years after our own revolution, we weren't doing so hot either.
We have far bigger problems than illegal immigration.
I have been saying this to all I happen to discuss the immigration issue with: like it or not, illegal labor has become an inextractible link in the economic chain. It is our own doing and now we must deal with it. It is a far more complicated issue, with many layers, than can be solved by a deport them all now" attitude. shipping them all home." That being said, until a solution is found, I do wish that all those who commit criminal acts (beyond the act of coming here illegally) would be deported and that there was a national fingerprint data base solely for the purpose of managing this.
Are classic examples of neo-Rockefeller Republicans or open border Democrats.
It "too late," it's inevitable.
No, there is always time to change policy, particularly when it is bad policy.
NAFTA could be renegotiated, but that's not the focus of the two comments I cite (that's a red herring).
Mexico is "...holding the cards, seeing that our economy is on thin ice."
Look at that reasoning and remember it, because this is the rational to give up America's sovereignty.
In other words:
"Yah, America made bad policy choices, and it's hurting us, but it's too late now to change policy, we have to keep going down the same failed policy road."
Is that stupid or what?
But these open borders, lose our sovereignty, people will try to sell you snake oil.
If you let them.
Of course, this apologist position regarding Mexico is total crap.
Right. Mexico holds all the cards, but their economy will crash (if America stops illegal immigration), and then they'll get tough on us by raising tariffs, causing us to crash. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. But that's what you do if you're selling snake oil.
Again, total crap.
America had a $70 billion trade deficit in '06 with Mexico.
Mexico is the one that gets hurt in a trade war. And Mexico knows it too. Mexico isn't about to engage in a trade war with the U.S. On the contrary, America holds the high cards.
Our economy has issues, but it's not "on thin ice." Certainly, America's economy is stronger than Mexico's economy. Remember, Mexico is the country that can't support all its people.
And, yes, they need to reform, it won't be easy, but they can and they will, if they can't send all their excess population to the U.S.
80 years out from the Mexican Revolution and there is total inequality with the richest man in the world living in Mexico. It's so fragile...give me a Kleenix...I think I'm going to cry.
What total garbage.
Ladies and gentlemen, what you read in these two above comments is called the "big lie."
anon323pm says, "We have far bigger problems than illegal immigration." This quote is totally inconsistent with the rest of what he says above. In fact, he lays problems at illegal immigration's feet that are so big, they're intractable.
In other words, our problems are so big, they are ilreversable.
That's the big lie. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of anon323pm.
Moondoggie keeps going with the big lie, saying,"illegal immigration has become the inextractible link in the economic chain."
Of course, he never explains why this is so. moondoggie just expects the reader to accept this statement whole, with no reasoning, evidence, or facts.
But he does have the gaul to say in essence "It's our own fault, but we can't change it."
This is the open borders, amnesty montra.
It's completely false, but they don't care.
As long as you swallow it whole and choke it down.
Well, that's another bottle of snake oil sold, and money in their pocket.
Giuliani and his backers are happy to sell this snake oil all day long.
Giuliani is a fake.
You know why he thinks he can get away with it?
To Frank Sinatra's New York, New York music.
"If you can fake it there," "you can fake it anywhere," "It's up to you," "New York," "New Yooooooooork!"
Sorry, this Oregonian ain't buying your Eastcoast media sellout, crap.
If you are going to quote me, then the least you can do is be accurate! I NEVER said "...we can't change it." Quite the contrary, I said "...we must deal with it" (meaning solve the problem) and I also said "until a solution is found." Misquoting me to suit your own purpose is your BIG LIE.
As to providing evidence that backs up my OPINION that immigrant labor (both legal and illegal) has become an inextractable link in our economic chain I will refer you to one of many articles that provide exhaustive evidence. (See web address below). Of course, you will decry my source as "liberal propoganda by elitist professors/hippies/communists without bothering to read it or examine the sources. In the off chance that you actually do read it, pay particular attention to what is said about the impact on social security as our population ages.
Also...I said "illegal labor" NOT "illegal immigration" as you quoted. "Illegal labor" is different than "illegal immigration" in that not all illegal immigrants are contributing by actually "working."
I'll stand corrected on the quote. That is my fault. What I was attempting to do was paraphrase in summary of what you meant. "essence" was supposed to signal that I was interpreting your meaning.
I stand corrected on the "labor" misquotation. I noticed, but after it was "published."
Okay, my solution is enforcement through attrition, with follow up catch and deportation.
What is your solution?
Until I see a solution out of you, my summaries seem spot on.
I will read "at least some" of your articles. Thank you.
But let me say this: Pointing to articles that are not "at hand" doesn't make for a strong argument.
And, of course, my criticism was right: You made a sweeping, all incompassing assertion about "illegal" labor without supplying one iota of reason, evidence, or fact.
Better learn to summarize supporting factoids to back up your points, rather than, making unsupported assertions.
Oh, yeah, you're so "spot on." Where can I get one of those rubber arms so I can pat myself on the back just like you? Are they hawking them over at NewsMax?Follow your own damn advice. Your post is full of assertions with no evidence to back you up. Cite evidence for some of our claims!
Ever since Daniel started this blog I have expressed my opinion that we are going after the wrong people. They are here because they are BEING HIRED within hours of crossing the border. The best and most humane solution to this problem is to agressively prosecute THE CROOKS who hire them with laws we already have on the books. No jobs, no reason to come here. They will go home all by themselves, no box cars and German shepards necessary. I know that means less fun for you guys, but hey...I'm sure some day you'll get to gas somebody...
Sorry, but how do you propose to shut down all avenues of occupation. Perhaps this was possible, once upon a time, but at this stage in the game there are entire illegal economies operating in this country.
You could still curtail factory, and food/hotel industry employment, which would be a big step in the right direction. However, the day labor market would still be going strong. Various permanent private positions would remain until you institute door-by-door searches for nannies, maids, gardeners, etc. Textile sweat shops and the like are already sought out by law enforcement and the IRS, yet still exist in large number. The drug trade, foreign gangs, and other ultra-illegal entities would also be unaffected by anti-employer actions, and maintain cash flows for large numbers of non-citizens.
In many cases, it is still difficult for a small employer to determine if an applicant is here legally or not. Fake ids, stolen identities, and the use of aliases can make it very difficult for the guy who runs a lunch wagon, a dry cleaner, or a landscaping company to determine a person's actual legal standing.
Furthermore, although a comprehensive approach looking for both employers, and actual people who actually snuck into the country while actually being fully aware that it was breaking the laws in a big way (would you pay a coyote a big chunk of change to help you do something that was NOT illegal?) is necessary, the biggest spur to encourage packing up and returning to your country of origin is threat of enforcement. Take away a job, and those people will spend most of their energy looking for ways to secure another... and eventually, they'll find one, there are too many ways around possible anti-employment measures.
They pick up illegals on every street corner in town, driving cars, with license plates on them. You can identify the employers that way. Arrest several of them in each state, show them doing perp walks on FOX news, put their pictures in the paper and fine them a shit load of money, and you bet your ass people will stop doing it. It will take a little time, but these crooks deserve to prosecuted for breaking the law. It is a hell of a lot easier to go this route than to try and ship off 13 million people. - Eli Barnhardt
Ask DelMonte how it all worked out for them! You are basically being an apologist for the criminal employers who are the "ground zero" offender in the first place. They come here because they are getting hired. They are getting hired because so far, the criminal employer has been allowed to break the law with impunity. Percentage wise, practically everyone pays their taxes for fear of the IRS. Instill that same kind of fear in the crooks that employ illegals and percentage wise, the numbers of crooks willing to take a chance and hire an illegal will go down drastically.
Your response suggests that you perceive the United States to be the isolated entity that it is not.
Since at least WWII, the U.S. has been involved in the business of practically every sovereign nation with the express intent of opening their markets in the name of capitalism. With the fall of the Soviet Union, global capitalism became, without question, the dominant economic system across the globe. Capitalism has scored a resounding victory in that regard.
Acting as if that sort of international integration of economies can be undone overnight is naive at best. In dealing with the illegal immigration problem in this country, the US cannot act as if it is an isolated entity. A destabilized Mexican economy is a vital threat to our own economy, and if the U.S. were to fall into a deep recession, the world would follow.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for open-border capitalists. Insofar as you voted for our current adminstration, which I did not, your own voting behavior is far more supportive of that mentality than is my own.
My only point is that it would be foolish to ignore the reality of a globablized market in dealing with the immigration problem, and economic considerations should be part of the discussion.
The federal government should be more open as to why they are loathe to go after employers. My guess is that they fear depriving these employers of their cheap labor. I would like to see a more honest discussion in this regard.
Your extremist solutions and scapegoating of the immigrants themselves, does nothing to promote that type of discussion.
To anon323pm and others: Enforcement through attrition requires tough enforcement on employers.
I absolutely agree, you have to dry up the jobs.
But this is a fact: Most people will stop an illegal activity if they think they will get caught.
Arrest a number of employers and throw them in jail and the message will get out:
Hiring illegal aliens will not be tolerated. Period.
Once this message is solidly sent out; jobs for illegal aliens will dry up.
Illegal aliens also don't want to be arrested; when they recieve the message that their presence will not be tolerated anymore--they will leave on their own accord.
Fianally after the attrition has had an opportunity to work, there will be a need for active enforcement.
Sorry, no railroad cars...but don't you have a vivid and dramatic imagination.
Getting back to the point of the post, of course, Democrats don't want a clear choice on amnesty because the polls are clear: Americans support enforcement through attrition in huge majorities.
All Democratic presidential candidates support amnesty, including Hillary.
With a strong authentic border control, "no amnesty" candidate Republicans can effect a political realignment.
This election could change the dynamics of American politics.
Now, I know that scares people: The Democratic leadership and big money, cheap labor Republicans.
And Globalists of either politcal stripe.
But little guy Republicans would see a victorious Republican Party much closer to Reagan's party than currently exists.
A party blue collar Democrats would be comfortable voting for.
Reagan Democrats.
Bush's approval is at 24%, one reason is his stance on amnesty: Bush wants it, and is willing to lie to get it.
The Common Man would actually take control of this country as the Constitution and Declaration of Independence foresaw.
There are alot of Democrats, Republicans, and independences, that could join for that vision and realignment.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
A Republican party returned to its roots.
"All men are entitled to the fruits of their labor." --Abraham Lincoln--
To anon323pm: You are quite right that The United states is engaged all over the world both economically and politically.
This engagement with the rest of the world is not going to stop because America decides to assert a basic aspect of sovereignty: Border control and who comes into the country under what conditions.
Every country has control over their border as a basic, bedrock component of sovereignty.
That is a cardinal concern of a majority of Americans who believe our sovereignty is under threat.
To insist on approving what aliens come into the country for what reasons does not threaten America's interests economically or politically around the world.
I seriously doubt any country will object to America controlling its border.
And, if some country did object, I'd remind them America has the most generous immigration policy in the world. No other country takes as many legal immigrants as America.
America takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined.
So, if somebody's got a problem with that, too bad, they can suck eggs.
America's economy does not depend of illegal immigration.
We are a high tech economy that does not depend on cheap labor.
You take a dim view of the Mexican economy and the Mexican nation as a whole, if you think they can't survive while providing for all their people.
Mexico is a very rich country, but with huge income inequality.
They need political-economic reform. If it causes some discomfort, too bad. But they can manage, it might even cause an economic awakening.
Sorry, there is no globalized immigration issue. 85% of illegal immigration is from Mexico. Nor does America have any obligation to take Mexico's excess population or any other country's excess population.
To repeat, I am willing to hold American employers accountable, and in fact, that is the key.
Extremist solution? No, controlling our borders is not extremist. It's the law!
You are the extremist. You make noises about a willingness to control the border, but then refuse to bite the bullet.
Which makes me believe you are insincere about coming to grips with the problem.
It takes political will.
A majority of Americans have that will. The question is will the politicians respect the American people?
You are misinformed and clearly do not understand the point that I am trying to make, which is this: Sure we could reduce illegal immigration to nearly zero; however, we have to take into account the economic impacts of doing so; the U.S. economy is not isolated but rather part of a globally integrated capitalist market that, despite your contention otherwise, relies heavily on exploitable low-wage labor, of which that provided by illegal immigrants is the classic contemporary form. Capitalist economies, and those who speculate in capitalist markets, do not like shocks to the system, and dealing with illegal immigration in the ways that you are proposing could shock the system to the extent that it triggers a world-wide recession, the geopolitical consequences of which would make your concerns over providing the children of illegals with an education seem like a walk in the park.
I'm not defending this state of economic affairs as ideal, but rather, merely pointing out its reality and your apparent ignorance of it. To claim that it is not so, doesn't make it go away.
Other points on which you are mistaken:
"And, if some country did object, I'd remind them America has the most generous immigration policy in the world. No other country takes as many legal immigrants as America. America takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined."
This might be true, but countries such as Canada and Australia take in more immigrants, relative to the size of their population, and on that basis, one could argue that their immigration policies are more "generous".
"America's economy does not depend of illegal immigration.We are a high tech economy that does not depend on cheap labor."
You're joking right? Since the 1970s, job growth in this country has occurred in relatively equal proporitions at the high and low end of the skill spectrum, creating what economists often refer to as the "hour-glass" job structure. This economy still relies heavily on cheap labor. Who cleans all of the high-tech office buildings and maintains their landscapes, who cuts and processes your meat, picks your vegetables, cleans your hotel rooms, works back-of-the-house at restaurants, etc. etc.? Primarily low-skilled immigrants. Are you completely hell-bent on fashioning a fabricated state of affairs in the world so as to line it up with your immigration policy with these sorts of delusional claims?
"Sorry, there is no globalized immigration issue."
You have to be kidding. Illegal immigration is a contentious issue in nearly every advanced industrial economy.
"85% of illegal immigration is from Mexico."
Wrong. An estimated 56% is from Mexico.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf
What's the point of a debate if one party is making things up or being dishonest?
24 comments:
uh...what's your point? Things have changed a little since 1996, don't you think? It's not inconceivable (nor is it wrong) for one to change their views in light of a changing world.
Thanks Daniel. This is an example why Giuliani has no business being president.
But the open border, amnesty crowd want to pass this pretender off to the party.
I say "No way!"
President Bush has 24% approval rating. Giuliani is the Bush candidate.
Republicans aren't going to win elections with a status quo candidate that takes the baton from a president with 24% approval.
So don't tell me Rudy is the only one that can beat Hillary.
Heck, Giuliani backed out of a 2000 U.S. Senate race against carpet bagger Hillary (yes, prostate cancer was a reason, but I suggest not the major reason he didn't run -- Rudy didn't think he could win).
So why can he win now?
There are really only two authentic border control candidates -- the rest are phony.
Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.
Both have credibility on "no amnesty" and border control.
Side note: Fred Thompson had a bad record on illegal immigration while Senator, so now he has changed his tune (because it's politcally expedient).
His new campaign manager Spencer Abraham (former Michigan Senator with also a bad voting record on illegal immigration) is a telling signal to the big money, open borders, amnesty crowd, that while Thompson talks tough on immigration, for the folks, he's winking to the big money in the back of the room.
I know Daniel supports Tancredo. I respect Tancredo. But he has even less chance than Hunter.
If border control Republicans can band together behind one candidate we can stop the Republican Party from stabbing us in the back.
I fought amnesty very hard. I'm not going to turn around and support an amnesty candidate. Period.
Duncan Hunter has won straw polls: Arizona, Texas, and come close in others, South Carolina.
Hunter has a complete platform.
Including trade and a strong military.
Hunter is the REAL Conservative (that has any shot at winning, with all due respect to Rep. Tancredo).
I know there're a lot of Tancredo backers, who read this blog.
I respect you and your views.
Weigh the political realities.
We can stop Giuliani, who wants to pirate the Republican Party.
Giuliani is weak on other aspects of Sovereignty as well.
Daniel and the rest of you who actually believe in such things as virgin births, Christ surviving his own death, and noah's ark...when Giuliani gets the nod, PLEASE TROT OUT A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE!!!!
While I personally don't have a hard-on for Guilliani, I must agree with anon 1:59. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist when a politician changes their mind about an issue. If the "new view" is the result of new information, new situations, etc...then what is wrong with changing your mind about an issue? Better that than to be forever "STUCK ON STUPID" like Bush and his "24% Club."
Of course, if the "change" is obvious pandering, then there's a problem.
To anon159pm:
No, things have not changed that much since '96.
One, Guiliani to this very day supports "regularization," a code word for amnesty. The same code word McCain uses today.
Two, in '96 there was tremendous pressure for contolling immigration. A tough sounding law was passed, but there was Giuliani saying, "the border can't be controlled."
Nothing has changed since '96, but Giuliani's personal calculation of what will benefit him politically. Yet, still Giuliani is calling for amnesty...ops, er, I mean "regularization."
As we all know, amnesty will only encourage more illegal aliens to come over the border. So Giuliani's brash statement at the beginning of the tape is nothing but bullcrap.
Don't fall for it. Giuliani is a big time actor, better than Thompson. Giuliani is the son on of a small time Mafia enforcer.
Giuliani's law firm represents CITGO, the Venezuelan oil company controlled by Hugo Chavez, the dictator.
His law firm represents Cintra, the Spanish company that wants to build the Trans-Texas-Corridor, also known as, the NAFTA superhighway.
The Eastcoast establishment and open borders crowd want Giuliani.
Also known as neo-Rockefeller Republicans.
They will stab in the back, Social Conservatives and border control Conservatives, equally.
These neo-Rockefellers, also want to off-shore American production and jobs.
Giuliani is the king of pander: cross dressing, gay pride parades, suing gun manufacturers, sanctuary city.
So it goes.
Too late. We can't back out of NAFTA now, and Mexico seems to be holding the cards, seeing as our economy appears to be on thin ice.
Even if we had the resources to substantially cut-off illegal immigration, this would deal a substantial blow to Mexico's economy and they would likely respond by levying stiff tarrifs on all goods and money moving in and out of that country on a daily basis. This would be a crushing blow to the U.S. economy, making U.S. social service expenditures on illegals seem like a drop in the bucket. Surely there is a far more diplomatic way of going about fixing the problem.
For those of you who complain that Mexico shouldn't be so corrupt and should work on developing their own economy, you obviously don't know Mexico very well. They are only 80 years removed from a devastating revolution. 80 years after our own revolution, we weren't doing so hot either.
We have far bigger problems than illegal immigration.
Anon 3:23 -
I have been saying this to all I happen to discuss the immigration issue with: like it or not, illegal labor has become an inextractible link in the economic chain. It is our own doing and now we must deal with it. It is a far more complicated issue, with many layers, than can be solved by a
deport them all now" attitude. shipping them all home."
That being said, until a solution is found, I do wish that all those who commit criminal acts (beyond the act of coming here illegally) would be deported and that there was a national fingerprint data base solely for the purpose of managing this.
To all who read this blog:
anon323pm and moondoggie341pm:
Are classic examples of neo-Rockefeller Republicans or open border Democrats.
It "too late," it's inevitable.
No, there is always time to change policy, particularly when it is bad policy.
NAFTA could be renegotiated, but that's not the focus of the two comments I cite (that's a red herring).
Mexico is "...holding the cards, seeing that our economy is on thin ice."
Look at that reasoning and remember it, because this is the rational to give up America's sovereignty.
In other words:
"Yah, America made bad policy choices, and it's hurting us, but it's too late now to change policy, we have to keep going down the same failed policy road."
Is that stupid or what?
But these open borders, lose our sovereignty, people will try to sell you snake oil.
If you let them.
Of course, this apologist position regarding Mexico is total crap.
Right. Mexico holds all the cards, but their economy will crash (if America stops illegal immigration), and then they'll get tough on us by raising tariffs, causing us to crash. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. But that's what you do if you're selling snake oil.
Again, total crap.
America had a $70 billion trade deficit in '06 with Mexico.
Mexico is the one that gets hurt in a trade war. And Mexico knows it too. Mexico isn't about to engage in a trade war with the U.S. On the contrary, America holds the high cards.
Our economy has issues, but it's not "on thin ice." Certainly, America's economy is stronger than Mexico's economy. Remember, Mexico is the country that can't support all its people.
And, yes, they need to reform, it won't be easy, but they can and they will, if they can't send all their excess population to the U.S.
80 years out from the Mexican Revolution and there is total inequality with the richest man in the world living in Mexico. It's so fragile...give me a Kleenix...I think I'm going to cry.
What total garbage.
Ladies and gentlemen, what you read in these two above comments is called the "big lie."
anon323pm says, "We have far bigger problems than illegal immigration." This quote is totally inconsistent with the rest of what he says above. In fact, he lays problems at illegal immigration's feet that are so big, they're intractable.
In other words, our problems are so big, they are ilreversable.
That's the big lie. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of anon323pm.
Moondoggie keeps going with the big lie, saying,"illegal immigration has become the inextractible link in the economic chain."
Of course, he never explains why this is so. moondoggie just expects the reader to accept this statement whole, with no reasoning, evidence, or facts.
But he does have the gaul to say in essence "It's our own fault, but we can't change it."
This is the open borders, amnesty montra.
It's completely false, but they don't care.
As long as you swallow it whole and choke it down.
Well, that's another bottle of snake oil sold, and money in their pocket.
Giuliani and his backers are happy to sell this snake oil all day long.
Giuliani is a fake.
You know why he thinks he can get away with it?
To Frank Sinatra's New York, New York music.
"If you can fake it there,"
"you can fake it anywhere,"
"It's up to you,"
"New York,"
"New Yooooooooork!"
Sorry, this Oregonian ain't buying your Eastcoast media sellout, crap.
Anon 5:21 --
If you are going to quote me, then the least you can do is be accurate! I NEVER said "...we can't change it." Quite the contrary, I said "...we must deal with it" (meaning solve the problem) and I also said "until a solution is found." Misquoting me to suit your own purpose is your BIG LIE.
As to providing evidence that backs up my OPINION that immigrant labor (both legal and illegal) has become an inextractable link in our economic chain I will refer you to one of many articles that provide exhaustive evidence. (See web address below). Of course, you will decry my source as "liberal propoganda by elitist professors/hippies/communists without bothering to read it or examine the sources. In the off chance that you actually do read it, pay particular attention to what is said about the impact on social security as our population ages.
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=491
Also...I said "illegal labor" NOT "illegal immigration" as you quoted. "Illegal labor" is different than "illegal immigration" in that not all illegal immigrants are contributing by actually "working."
ALL HAIL STEWIE!!!
To moondoggie647pm:
I'll stand corrected on the quote. That is my fault. What I was attempting to do was paraphrase in summary of what you meant. "essence" was supposed to signal that I was interpreting your meaning.
I stand corrected on the "labor" misquotation. I noticed, but after it was "published."
Okay, my solution is enforcement through attrition, with follow up catch and deportation.
What is your solution?
Until I see a solution out of you, my summaries seem spot on.
I will read "at least some" of your articles. Thank you.
But let me say this: Pointing to articles that are not "at hand" doesn't make for a strong argument.
And, of course, my criticism was right: You made a sweeping, all incompassing assertion about "illegal" labor without supplying one iota of reason, evidence, or fact.
Better learn to summarize supporting factoids to back up your points, rather than, making unsupported assertions.
You will learn grasshopper.
Anon521pm,
I completely agree with your post, attrition through enforcement. Amnesty was given once, never again!
Anon521:
Oh, yeah, you're so "spot on." Where can I get one of those rubber arms so I can pat myself on the back just like you? Are they hawking them over at NewsMax?Follow your own damn advice. Your post is full of assertions with no evidence to back you up. Cite evidence for some of our claims!
Ever since Daniel started this blog I have expressed my opinion that we are going after the wrong people. They are here because they are BEING HIRED within hours of crossing the border. The best and most humane solution to this problem is to agressively prosecute THE CROOKS who hire them with laws we already have on the books. No jobs, no reason to come here. They will go home all by themselves, no box cars and German shepards necessary. I know that means less fun for you guys, but hey...I'm sure some day you'll get to gas somebody...
our: your
Anon 5:21,
Sorry, but how do you propose to shut down all avenues of occupation. Perhaps this was possible, once upon a time, but at this stage in the game there are entire illegal economies operating in this country.
You could still curtail factory, and food/hotel industry employment, which would be a big step in the right direction. However, the day labor market would still be going strong. Various permanent private positions would remain until you institute door-by-door searches for nannies, maids, gardeners, etc. Textile sweat shops and the like are already sought out by law enforcement and the IRS, yet still exist in large number. The drug trade, foreign gangs, and other ultra-illegal entities would also be unaffected by anti-employer actions, and maintain cash flows for large numbers of non-citizens.
In many cases, it is still difficult for a small employer to determine if an applicant is here legally or not. Fake ids, stolen identities, and the use of aliases can make it very difficult for the guy who runs a lunch wagon, a dry cleaner, or a landscaping company to determine a person's actual legal standing.
Furthermore, although a comprehensive approach looking for both employers, and actual people who actually snuck into the country while actually being fully aware that it was breaking the laws in a big way (would you pay a coyote a big chunk of change to help you do something that was NOT illegal?) is necessary, the biggest spur to encourage packing up and returning to your country of origin is threat of enforcement. Take away a job, and those people will spend most of their energy looking for ways to secure another... and eventually, they'll find one, there are too many ways around possible anti-employment measures.
They pick up illegals on every street corner in town, driving cars, with license plates on them. You can identify the employers that way. Arrest several of them in each state, show them doing perp walks on FOX news, put their pictures in the paper and fine them a shit load of money, and you bet your ass people will stop doing it. It will take a little time, but these crooks deserve to prosecuted for breaking the law. It is a hell of a lot easier to go this route than to try and ship off 13 million people.
- Eli Barnhardt
PS: It's not that hard to verify an employee. That's bullsh*t.
Ask DelMonte how it all worked out for them! You are basically being an apologist for the criminal employers who are the "ground zero" offender in the first place. They come here because they are getting hired. They are getting hired because so far, the criminal employer has been allowed to break the law with impunity. Percentage wise, practically everyone pays their taxes for fear of the IRS. Instill that same kind of fear in the crooks that employ illegals and percentage wise, the numbers of crooks willing to take a chance and hire an illegal will go down drastically.
Anon 521:
Your response suggests that you perceive the United States to be the isolated entity that it is not.
Since at least WWII, the U.S. has been involved in the business of practically every sovereign nation with the express intent of opening their markets in the name of capitalism. With the fall of the Soviet Union, global capitalism became, without question, the dominant economic system across the globe. Capitalism has scored a resounding victory in that regard.
Acting as if that sort of international integration of economies can be undone overnight is naive at best. In dealing with the illegal immigration problem in this country, the US cannot act as if it is an isolated entity. A destabilized Mexican economy is a vital threat to our own economy, and if the U.S. were to fall into a deep recession, the world would follow.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for open-border capitalists. Insofar as you voted for our current adminstration, which I did not, your own voting behavior is far more supportive of that mentality than is my own.
My only point is that it would be foolish to ignore the reality of a globablized market in dealing with the immigration problem, and economic considerations should be part of the discussion.
The federal government should be more open as to why they are loathe to go after employers. My guess is that they fear depriving these employers of their cheap labor. I would like to see a more honest discussion in this regard.
Your extremist solutions and scapegoating of the immigrants themselves, does nothing to promote that type of discussion.
-- anon 3:23
To anon323pm and others:
Enforcement through attrition requires tough enforcement on employers.
I absolutely agree, you have to dry up the jobs.
But this is a fact: Most people will stop an illegal activity if they think they will get caught.
Arrest a number of employers and throw them in jail and the message will get out:
Hiring illegal aliens will not be tolerated. Period.
Once this message is solidly sent out; jobs for illegal aliens will dry up.
Illegal aliens also don't want to be arrested; when they recieve the message that their presence will not be tolerated anymore--they will leave on their own accord.
Fianally after the attrition has had an opportunity to work, there will be a need for active enforcement.
Sorry, no railroad cars...but don't you have a vivid and dramatic imagination.
Getting back to the point of the post, of course, Democrats don't want a clear choice on amnesty because the polls are clear: Americans support enforcement through attrition in huge majorities.
All Democratic presidential candidates support amnesty, including Hillary.
With a strong authentic border control, "no amnesty" candidate Republicans can effect a political realignment.
This election could change the dynamics of American politics.
Now, I know that scares people: The Democratic leadership and big money, cheap labor Republicans.
And Globalists of either politcal stripe.
But little guy Republicans would see a victorious Republican Party much closer to Reagan's party than currently exists.
A party blue collar Democrats would be comfortable voting for.
Reagan Democrats.
Bush's approval is at 24%, one reason is his stance on amnesty: Bush wants it, and is willing to lie to get it.
The Common Man would actually take control of this country as the Constitution and Declaration of Independence foresaw.
There are alot of Democrats, Republicans, and independences, that could join for that vision and realignment.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
A Republican party returned to its roots.
"All men are entitled to the fruits of their labor."
--Abraham Lincoln--
plenty of rhetoric there, but you absolutely failed to address any particular item in my post
--anon323
To anon323pm:
You are quite right that The United states is engaged all over the world both economically and politically.
This engagement with the rest of the world is not going to stop because America decides to assert a basic aspect of sovereignty: Border control and who comes into the country under what conditions.
Every country has control over their border as a basic, bedrock component of sovereignty.
That is a cardinal concern of a majority of Americans who believe our sovereignty is under threat.
To insist on approving what aliens come into the country for what reasons does not threaten America's interests economically or politically around the world.
I seriously doubt any country will object to America controlling its border.
And, if some country did object, I'd remind them America has the most generous immigration policy in the world. No other country takes as many legal immigrants as America.
America takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined.
So, if somebody's got a problem with that, too bad, they can suck eggs.
America's economy does not depend of illegal immigration.
We are a high tech economy that does not depend on cheap labor.
You take a dim view of the Mexican economy and the Mexican nation as a whole, if you think they can't survive while providing for all their people.
Mexico is a very rich country, but with huge income inequality.
They need political-economic reform. If it causes some discomfort, too bad. But they can manage, it might even cause an economic awakening.
Sorry, there is no globalized immigration issue. 85% of illegal immigration is from Mexico. Nor does America have any obligation to take Mexico's excess population or any other country's excess population.
To repeat, I am willing to hold American employers accountable, and in fact, that is the key.
Extremist solution? No, controlling our borders is not extremist. It's the law!
You are the extremist. You make noises about a willingness to control the border, but then refuse to bite the bullet.
Which makes me believe you are insincere about coming to grips with the problem.
It takes political will.
A majority of Americans have that will. The question is will the politicians respect the American people?
To Anon 542 -
You are misinformed and clearly do not understand the point that I am trying to make, which is this: Sure we could reduce illegal immigration to nearly zero; however, we have to take into account the economic impacts of doing so; the U.S. economy is not isolated but rather part of a globally integrated capitalist market that, despite your contention otherwise, relies heavily on exploitable low-wage labor, of which that provided by illegal immigrants is the classic contemporary form. Capitalist economies, and those who speculate in capitalist markets, do not like shocks to the system, and dealing with illegal immigration in the ways that you are proposing could shock the system to the extent that it triggers a world-wide recession, the geopolitical consequences of which would make your concerns over providing the children of illegals with an education seem like a walk in the park.
I'm not defending this state of economic affairs as ideal, but rather, merely pointing out its reality and your apparent ignorance of it. To claim that it is not so, doesn't make it go away.
Other points on which you are mistaken:
"And, if some country did object, I'd remind them America has the most generous immigration policy in the world. No other country takes as many legal immigrants as America. America takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined."
This might be true, but countries such as Canada and Australia take in more immigrants, relative to the size of their population, and on that basis, one could argue that their immigration policies are more "generous".
"America's economy does not depend of illegal immigration.We are a high tech economy that does not depend on cheap labor."
You're joking right? Since the 1970s, job growth in this country has occurred in relatively equal proporitions at the high and low end of the skill spectrum, creating what economists often refer to as the "hour-glass" job structure. This economy still relies heavily on cheap labor. Who cleans all of the high-tech office buildings and maintains their landscapes, who cuts and processes your meat, picks your vegetables, cleans your hotel rooms, works back-of-the-house at restaurants, etc. etc.? Primarily low-skilled immigrants. Are you completely hell-bent on fashioning a fabricated state of affairs in the world so as to line it up with your immigration policy with these sorts of delusional claims?
"Sorry, there is no globalized immigration issue."
You have to be kidding. Illegal immigration is a contentious issue in nearly every advanced industrial economy.
"85% of illegal immigration is from Mexico."
Wrong. An estimated 56% is from Mexico.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf
What's the point of a debate if one party is making things up or being dishonest?
Post a Comment