In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
New Alabama immigration law
nutfinn
Member Posts: 12,808 ✭✭✭
[:D]
Judge refuses to block key parts of Alabama immigration law.
http://www2.alabamas13.com/news/2011/sep/28/4/judge-set-rule-alabama-immigration-law-ar-2477812/
Judge refuses to block key parts of Alabama immigration law.
http://www2.alabamas13.com/news/2011/sep/28/4/judge-set-rule-alabama-immigration-law-ar-2477812/
Comments
[:D]
http://www2.alabamas13.com/news/2011/sep/28/4/judge-set-rule-alabama-immigration-law-ar-2477812/
[?] [:(] [?]
The farmers claim the wages are good, just Americans don't want to get sweaty and dirty.
"Brother" Bentley the Gov is a brother to everyone who believes in Christ, but he just slammed the door on a bunch of his "brothers".
Alabama has hundreds of idiot politicians. This is just one more story.[V]
The farmers here have already started raising hell over the crops going unpicked. Soon the consumers will start raising hell about high prices.
The farmers claim the wages are good, just Americans don't want to get sweaty and dirty.
"Brother" Bentley the Gov is a brother to everyone who believes in Christ, but he just slammed the door on a bunch of his "brothers".
Alabama has hundreds of idiot politicians. This is just one more story.[V]
I will gladly pay more for my produce to get rid of nasty illegals [:)]
Load them up and a free trip to the border and take obama with them
Less than 20% of the illegals work in the Farm sector and the rest are sucking benefits they don't deserve.
Load them up and a free trip to the border and take obama with them
You may be surprised at how many work in the industrial sector for good competitive wages. Many in manufacturing are running a bit nervous not knowing what is going to happen come April and May.
Brad Steele
The farmers here have already started raising hell over the crops going unpicked. Soon the consumers will start raising hell about high prices.
The farmers claim the wages are good, just Americans don't want to get sweaty and dirty.
"Brother" Bentley the Gov is a brother to everyone who believes in Christ, but he just slammed the door on a bunch of his "brothers".
Alabama has hundreds of idiot politicians. This is just one more story.[V]
The "we'll have to pay more for groceries" objection is about the most offensive reason and has the least merit with respect to the illegal alien problem. In effect we're saying "let them in, keep treating the illegals like crap so lettuce will stay cheap". Any economic objection with respect to illegal aliens misses the point. It's not about the economy, it's about following the law and the consequences of following the law. For illegal aliens, for employers and for consumers.
Take Arizona for example, tough immigration laws will force many farmers to sell. They not only compete against each other, they compete with other countries. The land developers are circling like vultures, waiting to pounce. Once that farmland is gone it is gone forever. Now comes the fun part, they start building, more people come in from the East or wherever, find jobs because of the building boom and more come in. Kind of a self fulfilling prophesy, things boom until the glut hits. That is what they call a bubble.
One of the few real pluses America has going for it, in a broad sort of way, is it can feed it's own population. How many farms have to go belly up before the U.S. *has to* import to feed it's population.
IMO any sort of progressive movement, no matter how good or beneficial it sounds, no matter what the law says, better think about the real consequences of messing with a system, any system, before they make broad and hasty decisions.
Ask yourself seriously if our house of cards economy can take the hit, right now, by messing with the labor pool on whatever level? Make a few jobs today and then cause whole industries to shut down because they have suddenly become non competitive or they fail to finish the transition without going bankrupt.
I *honestly* think the rabid anti immigration folks are shooting themselves in the foot and should leave well enough alone. If they insist, they should have their change slowly and incrementally. Social engineering (grass roots or legislated), has time and time again, produced results way wide of the intended outcome and in most every instance caused more problems than it solved.
If you want to actually do something about illegal labor, go take the job away from some Mexican and pick Strawberries next spring. I wonder just how many progressive anti illegal immigration activists would actually do the back breaking labor these people do. Take your average, fair skinned know it all, and have them work one year in the Imperial valley. Come back in twenty years and check them out for skin cancer.
Just something to chew on, you take a system, no matter how flawed and change it abruptly and generally bad things happen. More often than not, bad stuff the people writing the law never envisioned. Kind of like messing with the ecology, you never really know the eventual outcome.
Take Arizona for example, tough immigration laws will force many farmers to sell. They not only compete against each other, they compete with other countries. The land developers are circling like vultures, waiting to pounce. Once that farmland is gone it is gone forever. Now comes the fun part, they start building, more people come in from the East or wherever, find jobs because of the building boom and more come in. Kind of a self fulfilling prophesy, things boom until the glut hits. That is what they call a bubble.
One of the few real pluses America has going for it, in a broad sort of way, is it can feed it's own population. How many farms have to go belly up before the U.S. *has to* import to feed it's population.
IMO any sort of progressive movement, no matter how good or beneficial it sounds, no matter what the law says, better think about the real consequences of messing with a system, any system, before they make broad and hasty decisions.
Ask yourself seriously if our house of cards economy can take the hit, right now, by messing with the labor pool on whatever level? Make a few jobs today and then cause whole industries to shut down because they have suddenly become non competitive or they fail to finish the transition without going bankrupt.
I *honestly* think the rabid anti immigration folks are shooting themselves in the foot and should leave well enough alone. If they insist, they should have their change slowly and incrementally. Social engineering (grass roots or legislated), has time and time again, produced results way wide of the intended outcome and in most every instance caused more problems than it solved.
If you want to actually do something about illegal labor, go take the job away from some Mexican and pick Strawberries next spring. I wonder just how many progressive anti illegal immigration activists would actually do the back breaking labor these people do. Take your average, fair skinned know it all, and have them work one year in the Imperial valley. Come back in twenty years and check them out for skin cancer.
There's no doubt "unintended consequences" take place and I would prefer people sit down and do things in a planned, reasonable manner. But it's just as true that sometimes, and civil rights comes to mind, that people dig in their heels and say "hell no"" and you simply have to do something. What's the alternative - keep doing something that's wrong?
There's a distinction between legal & illegal immigration. Mixing "rabid anti-immigration" with illegal immigration clouds the point. Legal immigration is great - people pulling up stakes, following the rules by coming here and adding to the country. Fantastic, that takes guts. I'd hesitate to move from one state to another never mind a whole new country.
I'm not sure what a "progressive" anti illegal immigration activist is, but telling someone else to do the picking by way of correcting the issue - I'm missing something because I don't see how it applies. Some people have to do hard, lousy jobs to make ends meet. There ought to be an expectation they and their employer follow the law.
quote:Originally posted by MudderChuck
Just something to chew on, you take a system, no matter how flawed and change it abruptly and generally bad things happen. More often than not, bad stuff the people writing the law never envisioned. Kind of like messing with the ecology, you never really know the eventual outcome.
Take Arizona for example, tough immigration laws will force many farmers to sell. They not only compete against each other, they compete with other countries. The land developers are circling like vultures, waiting to pounce. Once that farmland is gone it is gone forever. Now comes the fun part, they start building, more people come in from the East or wherever, find jobs because of the building boom and more come in. Kind of a self fulfilling prophesy, things boom until the glut hits. That is what they call a bubble.
One of the few real pluses America has going for it, in a broad sort of way, is it can feed it's own population. How many farms have to go belly up before the U.S. *has to* import to feed it's population.
IMO any sort of progressive movement, no matter how good or beneficial it sounds, no matter what the law says, better think about the real consequences of messing with a system, any system, before they make broad and hasty decisions.
Ask yourself seriously if our house of cards economy can take the hit, right now, by messing with the labor pool on whatever level? Make a few jobs today and then cause whole industries to shut down because they have suddenly become non competitive or they fail to finish the transition without going bankrupt.
I *honestly* think the rabid anti immigration folks are shooting themselves in the foot and should leave well enough alone. If they insist, they should have their change slowly and incrementally. Social engineering (grass roots or legislated), has time and time again, produced results way wide of the intended outcome and in most every instance caused more problems than it solved.
If you want to actually do something about illegal labor, go take the job away from some Mexican and pick Strawberries next spring. I wonder just how many progressive anti illegal immigration activists would actually do the back breaking labor these people do. Take your average, fair skinned know it all, and have them work one year in the Imperial valley. Come back in twenty years and check them out for skin cancer.
There's no doubt "unintended consequences" take place and I would prefer people sit down and do things in a planned, reasonable manner. But it's just as true that sometimes, and civil rights comes to mind, that people dig in their heels and say "hell no"" and you simply have to do something. What's the alternative - keep doing something that's wrong?
There's a distinction between legal & illegal immigration. Mixing "rabid anti-immigration" with illegal immigration clouds the point. Legal immigration is great - people pulling up stakes, following the rules by coming here and adding to the country. Fantastic, that takes guts. I'd hesitate to move from one state to another never mind a whole new country.
I'm not sure what a "progressive" anti illegal immigration activist is, but telling someone else to do the picking by way of correcting the issue - I'm missing something because I don't see how it applies. Some people have to do hard, lousy jobs to make ends meet. There ought to be an expectation they and their employer follow the law.
I grant you I went a little overboard with the adjectives, mostly as a shock tactic just to try and get people to scrutinize their positions. People tend to look for absolutes, all this or all that and by definition become radical in their outlooks. There is doubtful to be a one size fits all solution to a serious social problem, more likely shades of grey. Others fail to think a position through when they jump on a band wagon (been there done that).
If a law, a few paragraphs long, can cure a problem that has been with us for a century, it is doubtful it is much more than a feel good gesture and likely profoundly arrogant in conception. That gesture, that may make the simple minded cheer, may destroy somebody else's life.
Progressives have a long history in American politics, from Obama care to child labor laws and jump party lines on many occasions. My main beef with progressives is they often get rabid about single agenda positions and become blinded to the big picture.
As far as the strict Constitutionalists go, a tricky subject, if a person is inside the borders of the U.S. they are defacto under U.S. control and as far as I can glean, that is the only real qualification for Constitutional protections. As far as to where you were born being a qualification for Constitutional protections, that is also tricky. The law is really fluid and changes often, sometimes common sense prevails, sometimes it doesn't and is often ambiguous. You are talking about likely millions of U.S. citizens born outside the borders of the U.S. that are citizens, by some criteria (parentage, status etc.).
Sorry Charlie, somebody is going to have to define illegal, rather than just saying illegal. It is illegal sounds definitive, it is far from definitive and is fluid either in law or in fact.
I find very little difference in Nazi Germanys views on Gypsies than I do many peoples position on undocumented workers or even say, 15,000 year old tribal lands being arbitrarily cut in two by somebody elses national borders. Laws can be funny things, sometimes they make little or no sense, sometimes they are morally wrong and sometimes they do more harm than good.
Anybody remember the U.S. Coast Guard vessel that 'pulled the grapnels in' to a Soviet [fishing trawler? not sure of type] several years ago?
Again, not sure, but I think they were in U.S. territorial waters, or, elsewise, had found a legitimate reason for hauling-in, and lashing alongside the Soviet vessel. So, and by-and-by, a gangplank was fixed between both vessels, as they were tied together for several hours.
Not my point.
What happened is, is that a seaman on the Soviet vessel ran across the gangplank, shouting 'asylum', and went, or, was taken below on the U.S. Man 'o War.
More hours passed.
Loosely defined, a cadre of Soviet crewmen crossed the gangplank, took the mutinous (barritrous?) seaman back to the Soviet vessel, chopped the lines, and sailed off.
Bottom line:
The Captain of the U.S. Man 'o War was Courts-Martialled, and relieved of command, and, if memory serves, was dismissed from service.
If you are IN us territory (which a Man 'o War is considered to be, absolutely), you are under the total administration of the U.S. Constitution, and all its ramifications.
So, and in conclusion: Physical placement carries a lot of weight, indeed!
Joe
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by MudderChuck
Just something to chew on, you take a system, no matter how flawed and change it abruptly and generally bad things happen. More often than not, bad stuff the people writing the law never envisioned. Kind of like messing with the ecology, you never really know the eventual outcome.
Take Arizona for example, tough immigration laws will force many farmers to sell. They not only compete against each other, they compete with other countries. The land developers are circling like vultures, waiting to pounce. Once that farmland is gone it is gone forever. Now comes the fun part, they start building, more people come in from the East or wherever, find jobs because of the building boom and more come in. Kind of a self fulfilling prophesy, things boom until the glut hits. That is what they call a bubble.
One of the few real pluses America has going for it, in a broad sort of way, is it can feed it's own population. How many farms have to go belly up before the U.S. *has to* import to feed it's population.
IMO any sort of progressive movement, no matter how good or beneficial it sounds, no matter what the law says, better think about the real consequences of messing with a system, any system, before they make broad and hasty decisions.
Ask yourself seriously if our house of cards economy can take the hit, right now, by messing with the labor pool on whatever level? Make a few jobs today and then cause whole industries to shut down because they have suddenly become non competitive or they fail to finish the transition without going bankrupt.
I *honestly* think the rabid anti immigration folks are shooting themselves in the foot and should leave well enough alone. If they insist, they should have their change slowly and incrementally. Social engineering (grass roots or legislated), has time and time again, produced results way wide of the intended outcome and in most every instance caused more problems than it solved.
If you want to actually do something about illegal labor, go take the job away from some Mexican and pick Strawberries next spring. I wonder just how many progressive anti illegal immigration activists would actually do the back breaking labor these people do. Take your average, fair skinned know it all, and have them work one year in the Imperial valley. Come back in twenty years and check them out for skin cancer.
There's no doubt "unintended consequences" take place and I would prefer people sit down and do things in a planned, reasonable manner. But it's just as true that sometimes, and civil rights comes to mind, that people dig in their heels and say "hell no"" and you simply have to do something. What's the alternative - keep doing something that's wrong?
There's a distinction between legal & illegal immigration. Mixing "rabid anti-immigration" with illegal immigration clouds the point. Legal immigration is great - people pulling up stakes, following the rules by coming here and adding to the country. Fantastic, that takes guts. I'd hesitate to move from one state to another never mind a whole new country.
I'm not sure what a "progressive" anti illegal immigration activist is, but telling someone else to do the picking by way of correcting the issue - I'm missing something because I don't see how it applies. Some people have to do hard, lousy jobs to make ends meet. There ought to be an expectation they and their employer follow the law.
I grant you I went a little overboard with the adjectives, mostly as a shock tactic just to try and get people to scrutinize their positions. People tend to look for absolutes, all this or all that and by definition become radical in their outlooks. There is doubtful to be a one size fits all solution to a serious social problem, more likely shades of grey. Others fail to think a position through when they jump on a band wagon (been there done that).
If a law, a few paragraphs long, can cure a problem that has been with us for a century, it is doubtful it is much more than a feel good gesture and likely profoundly arrogant in conception. That gesture, that may make the simple minded cheer, may destroy somebody else's life.
Progressives have a long history in American politics, from Obama care to child labor laws and jump party lines on many occasions. My main beef with progressives is they often get rabid about single agenda positions and become blinded to the big picture.
As far as the strict Constitutionalists go, a tricky subject, if a person is inside the borders of the U.S. they are defacto under U.S. control and as far as I can glean, that is the only real qualification for Constitutional protections. As far as to where you were born being a qualification for Constitutional protections, that is also tricky. The law is really fluid and changes often, sometimes common sense prevails, sometimes it doesn't and is often ambiguous. You are talking about likely millions of U.S. citizens born outside the borders of the U.S. that are citizens, by some criteria (parentage, status etc.).
Sorry Charlie, somebody is going to have to define illegal, rather than just saying illegal. It is illegal sounds definitive, it is far from definitive and is fluid either in law or in fact.
I find very little difference in Nazi Germanys views on Gypsies than I do many peoples position on undocumented workers or even say, 15,000 year old tribal lands being arbitrarily cut in two by somebody elses national borders. Laws can be funny things, sometimes they make little or no sense, sometimes they are morally wrong and sometimes they do more harm than good.
I can't speak to tribal lands, that's a separate issue. With respect to illegal aliens, there may be gradations within legal or illegal status, but I think the definition is not very difficult - is the person present in the country having completed the required legal process; and maintained that legal status? If the answer is yes, fine. If not I would afford the opportunity to correct or in the alternative, the person must leave. Now, has a person who did their paperwork then let it briefly lapse treated differently than a person who never engaged the system, gets fake ID and works under the table? I'd say yes, would treat people taking that sort of thing into account. But at some point it's "be legal or be removed".
With respect to the Constitution, the 14th makes a distinction between citizens and "persons". A citizen is afforded rights not granted to a person, however a person does have certain rights. A person may not be allowed to vote nor purchase a firearm, on the other hand a person is afforded due process protections - cruel and unusual punishment can not be imposed under the thesis "he's not a citizen, only a person". Certain aspects of the 14th apply, but not all. An illegal alien may be a person, they are not a citizen.
With respect to where a person was born it's simple - if born in the US you are afforded citizen status, the person who gave birth to you is not afforded citizen status. And that's where an issue comes up - the kid stays but Mom is removed? The status of each is clear, what to do, what can be done - not so much.
Nazis rounded up Gypsies and murdered them. No rights, no P & I, no due process. I think the comparison is off - if you hooked it to the tribal issue I might not disagree, but not on illegal aliens.
Regarding problems encountered with drastic change, I think that's sometimes unavoidable and we ought to accepts that the first change is not the end of change. Most folks aren't aware, but many Black business owners in the south opposed an end of segregation. Sounds counterintuitive, but when you consider those Black business owners, by virtue of segregation, knew they had a reliable customer base that could not patronize White stores their point of view is understandable. Should we have continued segregation because most Whites and some Black business owners thought it would be disruptive? Should we have gone slower than "all deliberate speed"? Sometimes change is a kick in the pants.
We haven't had this immigration problem for a century, more like 40 or so years. What was the catalyst, who started it - I really don't care unless knowing helps solve the problem. But it does need to be corrected and I'll go back to my first observation - having a system that allows people to be treated poorly so businesses can hire cheap and I can eat cheap is wrong. Doing it legally will cost money, that it does is beside the point.
The farmers here have already started raising hell over the crops going unpicked. Soon the consumers will start raising hell about high prices.
The farmers claim the wages are good, just Americans don't want to get sweaty and dirty.
"Brother" Bentley the Gov is a brother to everyone who believes in Christ, but he just slammed the door on a bunch of his "brothers".
Alabama has hundreds of idiot politicians. This is just one more story.[V]
Let the illegals get a work visa and work here legally, pay taxes, and go back at the end of the season.
quote:Originally posted by MudderChuck
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by MudderChuck
Just something to chew on, you take a system, no matter how flawed and change it abruptly and generally bad things happen. More often than not, bad stuff the people writing the law never envisioned. Kind of like messing with the ecology, you never really know the eventual outcome.
Take Arizona for example, tough immigration laws will force many farmers to sell. They not only compete against each other, they compete with other countries. The land developers are circling like vultures, waiting to pounce. Once that farmland is gone it is gone forever. Now comes the fun part, they start building, more people come in from the East or wherever, find jobs because of the building boom and more come in. Kind of a self fulfilling prophesy, things boom until the glut hits. That is what they call a bubble.
One of the few real pluses America has going for it, in a broad sort of way, is it can feed it's own population. How many farms have to go belly up before the U.S. *has to* import to feed it's population.
IMO any sort of progressive movement, no matter how good or beneficial it sounds, no matter what the law says, better think about the real consequences of messing with a system, any system, before they make broad and hasty decisions.
Ask yourself seriously if our house of cards economy can take the hit, right now, by messing with the labor pool on whatever level? Make a few jobs today and then cause whole industries to shut down because they have suddenly become non competitive or they fail to finish the transition without going bankrupt.
I *honestly* think the rabid anti immigration folks are shooting themselves in the foot and should leave well enough alone. If they insist, they should have their change slowly and incrementally. Social engineering (grass roots or legislated), has time and time again, produced results way wide of the intended outcome and in most every instance caused more problems than it solved.
If you want to actually do something about illegal labor, go take the job away from some Mexican and pick Strawberries next spring. I wonder just how many progressive anti illegal immigration activists would actually do the back breaking labor these people do. Take your average, fair skinned know it all, and have them work one year in the Imperial valley. Come back in twenty years and check them out for skin cancer.
There's no doubt "unintended consequences" take place and I would prefer people sit down and do things in a planned, reasonable manner. But it's just as true that sometimes, and civil rights comes to mind, that people dig in their heels and say "hell no"" and you simply have to do something. What's the alternative - keep doing something that's wrong?
There's a distinction between legal & illegal immigration. Mixing "rabid anti-immigration" with illegal immigration clouds the point. Legal immigration is great - people pulling up stakes, following the rules by coming here and adding to the country. Fantastic, that takes guts. I'd hesitate to move from one state to another never mind a whole new country.
I'm not sure what a "progressive" anti illegal immigration activist is, but telling someone else to do the picking by way of correcting the issue - I'm missing something because I don't see how it applies. Some people have to do hard, lousy jobs to make ends meet. There ought to be an expectation they and their employer follow the law.
I grant you I went a little overboard with the adjectives, mostly as a shock tactic just to try and get people to scrutinize their positions. People tend to look for absolutes, all this or all that and by definition become radical in their outlooks. There is doubtful to be a one size fits all solution to a serious social problem, more likely shades of grey. Others fail to think a position through when they jump on a band wagon (been there done that).
If a law, a few paragraphs long, can cure a problem that has been with us for a century, it is doubtful it is much more than a feel good gesture and likely profoundly arrogant in conception. That gesture, that may make the simple minded cheer, may destroy somebody else's life.
Progressives have a long history in American politics, from Obama care to child labor laws and jump party lines on many occasions. My main beef with progressives is they often get rabid about single agenda positions and become blinded to the big picture.
As far as the strict Constitutionalists go, a tricky subject, if a person is inside the borders of the U.S. they are defacto under U.S. control and as far as I can glean, that is the only real qualification for Constitutional protections. As far as to where you were born being a qualification for Constitutional protections, that is also tricky. The law is really fluid and changes often, sometimes common sense prevails, sometimes it doesn't and is often ambiguous. You are talking about likely millions of U.S. citizens born outside the borders of the U.S. that are citizens, by some criteria (parentage, status etc.).
Sorry Charlie, somebody is going to have to define illegal, rather than just saying illegal. It is illegal sounds definitive, it is far from definitive and is fluid either in law or in fact.
I find very little difference in Nazi Germanys views on Gypsies than I do many peoples position on undocumented workers or even say, 15,000 year old tribal lands being arbitrarily cut in two by somebody elses national borders. Laws can be funny things, sometimes they make little or no sense, sometimes they are morally wrong and sometimes they do more harm than good.
I can't speak to tribal lands, that's a separate issue. With respect to illegal aliens, there may be gradations within legal or illegal status, but I think the definition is not very difficult - is the person present in the country having completed the required legal process; and maintained that legal status? If the answer is yes, fine. If not I would afford the opportunity to correct or in the alternative, the person must leave. Now, has a person who did their paperwork then let it briefly lapse treated differently than a person who never engaged the system, gets fake ID and works under the table? I'd say yes, would treat people taking that sort of thing into account. But at some point it's "be legal or be removed".
With respect to the Constitution, the 14th makes a distinction between citizens and "persons". A citizen is afforded rights not granted to a person, however a person does have certain rights. A person may not be allowed to vote nor purchase a firearm, on the other hand a person is afforded due process protections - cruel and unusual punishment can not be imposed under the thesis "he's not a citizen, only a person". Certain aspects of the 14th apply, but not all. An illegal alien may be a person, they are not a citizen.
With respect to where a person was born it's simple - if born in the US you are afforded citizen status, the person who gave birth to you is not afforded citizen status. And that's where an issue comes up - the kid stays but Mom is removed? The status of each is clear, what to do, what can be done - not so much.
Nazis rounded up Gypsies and murdered them. No rights, no P & I, no due process. I think the comparison is off - if you hooked it to the tribal issue I might not disagree, but not on illegal aliens.
Regarding problems encountered with drastic change, I think that's sometimes unavoidable and we ought to accepts that the first change is not the end of change. Most folks aren't aware, but many Black business owners in the south opposed an end of segregation. Sounds counterintuitive, but when you consider those Black business owners, by virtue of segregation, knew they had a reliable customer base that could not patronize White stores their point of view is understandable. Should we have continued segregation because most Whites and some Black business owners thought it would be disruptive? Should we have gone slower than "all deliberate speed"? Sometimes change is a kick in the pants.
We haven't had this immigration problem for a century, more like 40 or so years. What was the catalyst, who started it - I really don't care unless knowing helps solve the problem. But it does need to be corrected and I'll go back to my first observation - having a system that allows people to be treated poorly so businesses can hire cheap and I can eat cheap is wrong. Doing it legally will cost money, that it does is beside the point.
Most of your points are valid, but IMO the solution is way far from clear cut and the aftermath is likely to be way more drastic than money. If you are looking for the simplistic approach, integrate them, absorb them, segregate them, alienate them, are all terms that can be applied to a solution.
The similarities to the Nazi approach and more recently the French approach to Gypsies and the oft proposed solution to illegal immigrants in America, are closer than not, excluding the "final solution". The French recently did a mass deportation of Gypsies. No matter that they had been migrating through France for centuries (many centuries). So what do we do it about it? Pass a law and toss them over the border, now they are somebody else's problem. Maybe the next generation terrorists will be Gypsies, who knows.
They had illegal alien roundups and mass deportations early in the 20th century, not a hundred years, but way more than forty. IMO the likely outcome to any new initiative, is likely to be the same as previous attempts, "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile".[:D]
A likely outcome to an illegal alien initiative may be an organized and perhaps militant backlash.
My reference to the constitution, was concerning their rights to due process. If you process one a minute you ought to be finished in around 28 years, LOL, not counting the ones who sneak in while you are processing the last batch....
As far as tribal lands be a different issue, many of the illegal immigrants qualify (what is it one eight or more) as native Americans.
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
The farmers here have already started raising hell over the crops going unpicked. Soon the consumers will start raising hell about high prices.
The farmers claim the wages are good, just Americans don't want to get sweaty and dirty.
"Brother" Bentley the Gov is a brother to everyone who believes in Christ, but he just slammed the door on a bunch of his "brothers".
Alabama has hundreds of idiot politicians. This is just one more story.[V]
Let the illegals get a work visa and work here legally, pay taxes, and go back at the end of the season.
+111111111111111111111111111111 there are legal ways to pay the same wages, to the same people, if they would only do it.
Most farmers won't tell you how much we give them in farm subsidies and then they use illegal labor. How much does that crop cost when we have to pay for the illegals to stay here when there not working.
Have you noticed they now have Tomato, Apple, Orange auto pickers that are replacing all that manual labor.
Load the bus and head to the border
Most of your points are valid, but IMO the solution is way far from clear cut and the aftermath is likely to be way more drastic than money. If you are looking for the simplistic approach, integrate them, absorb them, segregate them, alienate them, are all terms that can be applied to a solution.
The similarities to the Nazi approach and more recently the French approach to Gypsies and the oft proposed solution to illegal immigrants in America, are closer than not, excluding the "final solution". The French recently did a mass deportation of Gypsies. No matter that they had been migrating through France for centuries (many centuries). So what do we do it about it? Pass a law and toss them over the border, now they are somebody else's problem. Maybe the next generation terrorists will be Gypsies, who knows.
They had illegal alien roundups and mass deportations early in the 20th century, not a hundred years, but way more than forty. IMO the likely outcome to any new initiative, is likely to be the same as previous attempts, "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile".[:D]
A likely outcome to an illegal alien initiative may be an organized and perhaps militant backlash.
My reference to the constitution, was concerning their rights to due process. If you process one a minute you ought to be finished in around 28 years, LOL, not counting the ones who sneak in while you are processing the last batch....
As far as tribal lands be a different issue, many of the illegal immigrants qualify (what is it one eight or more) as native Americans.
That "final solution" exception is a heck of difference. As a comparison it's like saying two parachute jumps were the same - except one chute opened and one did not. The difference between the two is brief, but drastically different results after that 11,999 ft drop. [;)]
Regarding deportation I'll agree, it would take a long time, I don't view it as handling the bulk of the issue. And I don't agree with mass deportations, another difference with the French & Gypsies. I think deportation would occur through attrition - LE contact mostly I suppose. But the main emphasis of addressing the issue is jobs and benefits. They ought not be available to a person in the country illegally. If that is done the situation in large part corrects itself. I'm not looking for perfect, just good enough.
So far as any historical claim, being 1/8th or 1/16th I don't think that is relevent. The issue is immigration, not ancestral rights to land, who screwed who out of what. At somepoint everyone screwed someone else somewhere. If outside the country you have to follow the rules to enter and stay.
I think any immigration group contemplating violence as a result of not getting the policy they prefer plays right into the hands of the "toss 'em all out" folks because it gives weight to the admonition "they didn't follow the law to get here, why would you expect them to follow the law once they're here?"
Any country has a right to control its borders, decide who can enter or emigrate and how; and having done so, what they must do to remain. I'm willing to deal - a kid brought here age 3 ought to be treated differently than an adult who entered on his own - but the basic premise that laws, however precise or general, ought to be obeyed has to be followed.
quote:
Most of your points are valid, but IMO the solution is way far from clear cut and the aftermath is likely to be way more drastic than money. If you are looking for the simplistic approach, integrate them, absorb them, segregate them, alienate them, are all terms that can be applied to a solution.
The similarities to the Nazi approach and more recently the French approach to Gypsies and the oft proposed solution to illegal immigrants in America, are closer than not, excluding the "final solution". The French recently did a mass deportation of Gypsies. No matter that they had been migrating through France for centuries (many centuries). So what do we do it about it? Pass a law and toss them over the border, now they are somebody else's problem. Maybe the next generation terrorists will be Gypsies, who knows.
They had illegal alien roundups and mass deportations early in the 20th century, not a hundred years, but way more than forty. IMO the likely outcome to any new initiative, is likely to be the same as previous attempts, "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile".[:D]
A likely outcome to an illegal alien initiative may be an organized and perhaps militant backlash.
My reference to the constitution, was concerning their rights to due process. If you process one a minute you ought to be finished in around 28 years, LOL, not counting the ones who sneak in while you are processing the last batch....
As far as tribal lands be a different issue, many of the illegal immigrants qualify (what is it one eight or more) as native Americans.
That "final solution" exception is a heck of difference. As a comparison it's like saying two parachute jumps were the same - except one chute opened and one did not. The difference between the two is brief, but drastically different results after that 11,999 ft drop. [;)]
Regarding deportation I'll agree, it would take a long time, I don't view it as handling the bulk of the issue. And I don't agree with mass deportations, another difference with the French & Gypsies. I think deportation would occur through attrition - LE contact mostly I suppose. But the main emphasis of addressing the issue is jobs and benefits. They ought not be available to a person in the country illegally. If that is done the situation in large part corrects itself. I'm not looking for perfect, just good enough.
So far as any historical claim, being 1/8th or 1/16th I don't think that is relevent. The issue is immigration, not ancestral rights to land, who screwed who out of what. At somepoint everyone screwed someone else somewhere. If outside the country you have to follow the rules to enter and stay.
I think any immigration group contemplating violence as a result of not getting the policy they prefer plays right into the hands of the "toss 'em all out" folks because it gives weight to the admonition "they didn't follow the law to get here, why would you expect them to follow the law once they're here?"
Any country has a right to control its borders, decide who can enter or emigrate and how; and having done so, what they must do to remain. I'm willing to deal - a kid brought here age 3 ought to be treated differently than an adult who entered on his own - but the basic premise that laws, however precise or general, ought to be obeyed has to be followed.
I don't disagree with much of what you say, The only reason I even brought up ancestral lands, was the moral argument and to emphasize the arbitrary nature of the law. If it is arbitrary, by definition, it can't be absolute. People who say the law and use it as an "end argument" are only kidding themselves. The law sure hasn't worked well so far and sticking with something that is obviously ineffective is not real bright..
I grew up with the Border Patrol, did ride alongs as a teen. Even got hired and had a reporting date, but had to declined due to family issues. All the border Patrol has been doing as long as I can remember is kind of a stumbling block, for the unlucky, the infirm or the stupid. More of a token, than an effective blockade. They do as many rescues as they do interceptions. The guys I rode with used to say it was like herding Cats.
I also spent a lot of time on the old iron curtain, which actually fell well short of the image. My perspective may be somewhat jaded.
As far as alienating our southern brethren, it can bite us in the rear in more than one way. Fact is, people tend to flock to their peers when stressed. Stress them and you almost force them to organize. And like it or not, Hispanics are likely, along with the moderates, to decide the next election no matter how bad Pelosi and Obummer screw up. Bad mouthing them, their peers or landsman (Someone of a similar heritage or belief system)is unlikely to be productive or prudent. When was the last election a Republican President won that didn't have a large portion of the Hispanic vote, in the last half century?
I'll tell you something that really raised an eyebrow for me recently, was a post about a mixed group of Blacks and Hispanics attacking a family. Times they be a changing, back in the day Hispanics, at least in the west, pretty much had little to no interaction with blacks. Together they are at least a third of the population. Thinking of them finding common cause and amalgamating kind of makes the old sphincter twitch for some reason.
The argument doing what is right is too disruptive is basically saying doing what is knowingly wrong is more convenient.
Had the attempt on Hitler's life in August 44 succeeded the idea that stopping mass murder by gassing (and other means) would be too disruptive so had to be continued and fazed out gradually may be an over statement but the principle becomes more obvious with such an absurd statement.
Ja oder nicht?
I do not pretend to know or have a solution to the illegal Mexican situation.
I know that solving it in a manner that discourages its continuation will benefit the USA more than renaming it "alternative immigration" and allowing behavior outside the law to be rewarded which will encourage further unlawful immigration and exasperate the problem.
Wulfmann
"Fools learn from their own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others"
Otto von Bismarck
Anyone see where the problem lies?
It has nothing to do with him being a mexican, it has to do with his uninsured car that he has not bothered to register or inspect, his 6 kids in school that he doesn't pay taxes for, no income taxes paid in, yet allowed to take advantage of social programs like free lunches for kids, busing, food stamps, and so on. All while making $500-$700 a week!!!
I am thinking if I end up out of work I will go picking, probably get free food to boot.
There is a problem, and it is not race based, it is the imigrant's demand list that has him under the gun, so to speak. He wants everything and refuses to pay anything.
He is his own worst enemy. In Mexico he makes $7 a day, here he makes $100 and can't even contribute a $20 for the machine that allows him to make 14x more money for the same work, probably in a better work enviroment! Who wants to pick in a field in Mexico with drug wars raging all around?
From my point of view I say pay them $14 a day, thats double what they have in mexico and then put the $86 into tax system to pay for his freebies...
"When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis (American Writer, 1885-1951)
Lewis made that quote in 1935.
While I don't think Tuscaloosa will be the new Treblinka, I do think Alabama is now the vanguard of neo Nazism in Amerika.
Wanna really do something worthwhile? Term limits! For both sides of the coin. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by nutfinn
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
The farmers here have already started raising hell over the crops going unpicked. Soon the consumers will start raising hell about high prices.
The farmers claim the wages are good, just Americans don't want to get sweaty and dirty.
"Brother" Bentley the Gov is a brother to everyone who believes in Christ, but he just slammed the door on a bunch of his "brothers".
Alabama has hundreds of idiot politicians. This is just one more story.[V]
I will gladly pay more for my produce to get rid of nasty illegals [:)]
Sure you will.
Paul
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
In 1935, Hitler made the Jews illegal. All good Germans reported their neighbors and later, they were deported. If you failed to report an illegal, you were charged with a crime yourself. Can anyone spot a parallel? The German response at Nurumburg about "just following orders" was rejected by the Allied Powers, so claiming "It's the law" is just so much horsepoop and doesn't relieve anyone of responsibility.
"When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis (American Writer, 1885-1951)
Lewis made that quote in 1935.
While I don't think Tuscaloosa will be the new Treblinka, I do think Alabama is now the vanguard of neo Nazism in Amerika.Wanna really do something worthwhile? Term limits! For both sides of the coin. [;)]
Congratulations, that is offically the most ignorant statement I've read here.
Illegal immigrants aren't welcome here nor are criminals of any other stripe. BIG frickin' surprise.
Every time you think you've seen the worst of it...along comes another candidate for the award.[:D]
Go ALABAMA [:)] Send them illegals home. Why they can't come here legally, LIKE I DID???
Didn't the Nazi's aid Finland during the Winter War? [;)]
I got to see the new law's affects today. I was there to get a tag for my car and they were checking EVERYONE'S licenses that were in the courthouse building. You can't get a tag for anything unless you show your license showing you are a resident of the county. If the car is in your husband's name....you have to provide his license number and expiration date. I saw two Mexicans leave because they didn't have the ID they needed to get what they were there for.
SWEET, send them NASTY illegal (CRIMINALS) back home [:D]
[:D]