CSNbbs

Full Version: "Jobs no American will do"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
This just frosts my chaps. It is an insult to every American worker and the exposing of a lie - a BIG LIE. With our unemployment numbers nationwide quite low, I suspect there are a number of folks that have given up or are severely underemployed because their jobs were "outsourced."

We've been fed this line about the need for illegal immigrants to do jobs no American will do. (Of course, we won't do it for a low wage, which is the result of a flood of illegals undercutting American wages).

There is a huge illegal immigrant support industry made up of numerous groups of various interests. One of the most powerful also operates in the huge and lucrative industry of IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS. Watch this and fume:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

They are teaching businesses how to follow the "letter of the law" but disqualify American workers for jobs so they can hire cheap immigrant labor. Another reason I dislike lawyers.

Remember, these are the same WEASELS that have a seat at the table in crafting our new "comprehensive immigration reform" laws. Too many lawyers in Washington writing the laws so they can easily be skirted.

And they wonder why we don't trust our government to do what it says it is going to do? "Yeah, we really MEAN IT this time......We are going to enforce our borders."
MileHighBronco Wrote:This just frosts my chaps.

I got my chaps frosted once but the cold up against my..well, let's just say it was pretty unpleasant.
Follow the money.

I think it is great the US is seen as the "land of opportunity". Granted, manual labor, whether it be washing cars, doing landscaping or working in agriculture pays much better here than there.

A handful of questions.
First, what likelyhood will there be for any of these folks to "move up the ladder" and get out of a physically demanding job when they age and begin to break down? Say to a position that takes more brain than brawn and would provide needed benefits.
Answer: Never. These folks will become our next permanent "underclass".

Second: When these poor souls and their loved ones can't provide or afford basic needs after a life time of low earnings, what will be the likely source for "remedying" this "crisis"?

[/b]Answer: Government on all levels, via government entitlements, programs all paid by both the equally hard working tax payer and increasing our national debt.[/b]

Third: After a generation of this what do you think will be the level of tension domestically as a result of a burgeoning underclass, segregated by housing and education and further fueled by resentment of those in the "middle class" who not only have to take care of their own but with far less so to feed the government programs?

[/b]Answer: We may very well see physical violence in the streets. Something akin to the race riots of the 60's. But instead of it being more political/socio it will be economic/socio. The result will not be a "political solution", as it was then, it will have to be economic. The only way to create more (economically) would to be generate more or have less demand. Likely at that point our economy will be so much less dependent on "human labor"; manufacturing, construction, etc. that to produce more with such an expanded and untrained populus that the only practical choice will to be cut demand. Since you can't "expatriate" or legally kill people (reduce numbers) you have reduce the demand. The only fiscially responsible way, but morally dicey thing to do would be to limit services provided. That won't sit well with many looking for a way to make ends meet.[/b]

Fourth: Though many who will avoid this by fortunately being wealthy enough, HOW is the trade off to generate this temporary "boon" going to square with the vastly changed lay of the land with this socio/economic "powder keg" just a generation hence?

Fifth: With this growing significant domestic distraction, how will that effect our ability and or will to properly monitor those outside the US that have sworn to destroy it?

[/b]Answer: I suspect that in 20-30 years we will drastically regret that we put the immediate gratification of making money off this poor lot, and unfortunately make them the scapegoat. If I were Al Quieda, I would press forward, but with little need to waste resources as the US would at least toter under this strain. In fact, the growing underclass would likely be ripe to provide "home grown" terrorists[/b]

It is not the fault of those streaming across our borders that they can. It is being allowed and encouraged by those with very limited vision. It does not benefit these would be immigrants to entice them in with a slightly better 3 squares a day, only to the "top out" rather quickly with little of improving. Is it better than where they come from? Yes! But that is not our responsibility to provide carte blanche, then pull the rug out from under them with in a generation. If they want to work here, and they do, fine. But citizenship and its priviledges should not be taken or given lightly. There is a cost, a process and both need to be properly addressed. This current mess doesnt work and will cost all dearly in a short time.[/b]
These points you made and all the potential socio/economic/political/cultural ramifications of this new "comprehensive" immigration plan are the reason I'm so passionate about this issue. The fact that those pushing this plan want to 'fast track' it and not go through normal Senate legislative procedures (committee/debate/amend/vote/send to floor) concerns me even more. The potential of this bill to create such sweeping changes in this country demands that it be scrutinized very carefully and ample time be given for reasoned debate and amending. That is not being allowed. So now you have a situation where some are going to vote for it on cloture only so that they can vote against it on final vote (to try and save their hides from their constituents).

The demonization of opponents by those Senators (and Bush) in favor of this bill angers me but gives me hope that they are starting to recognize that in the internet age they can no longer swiftly foist bad legislation on the American public. Demonizing talk radio, which is admittedly conservative but which has led the charge against this bill, is a bad strategy. Keep doing it and you will only generate more resistance from the angry hordes who feel that our loud voices are not being heard. The elitist Senators think us, the great "unwashed" are too stupid and don't understand the legislation. I've read the bill - all 418 pages.

I'm ready to get out my pitchfork, too.
GBL & DB:

You are both exactly right. The net effect of our southern border being a sieve is that it pushes this country closer and closer to being exactly like what they have in South America.

A country where there is largely no middle class, only those that are wealthy and the "have-nots". A place where the wealthy live in walled in estates that have security personnel patrolling
the perimeters to keep out the undesirables. They have a coup every couple of generations due to the conditions we are trying to facilitate here.

Of course, the jackasses that are trying shove this amnesty legislation down our throats are lining their pockets enough so that they figure they'll be in the crowd living on the estates.

I'm not necessarily vehemently against some form of amnesty....they are already here and working. However, I don't want one single illegal let off the hook until the borders are closed to this massive human influx. If we grant any sort of amnesty before the borders are controlled, it's like extending an invitation to the rest of them to "come on over".

We have the ability to secure the southern border - right now those in Washington don't have the will. Someone is paying them off to keep the border open. Slimeballs.
"The net effect of our southern border being a sieve is that it pushes this country closer and closer to being exactly like what they have in South America.

A country where there is largely no middle class, only those that are wealthy and the "have-nots". A place where the wealthy live in walled in estates that have security personnel patrolling
the perimeters to keep out the undesirables."

You're going to try to put that on the illegals??? Long before illegal immigrants were an issue, this was.

"We have the ability to secure the southern border"

I'd like to see a workable plan for this one.
Come on, Karl. Are you really saying that we don't have the ABILITY? What we don't have from our political class is the WANT TO. The various interests - big business, racial preference groups, etc. have made it too lucrative for most politicians to really rock the boat about actually DOING what the laws we've been passing since 1986 said they would do.

If it's about spending, these clowns up there would much rather spend billions on pork and earmarks than on putting the $$ behind enforcing our borders. This is the country that put a man on the moon. It's do-able but for many reasons, squishy pols would rather pander for (hoped for) future voters than actually fund and make it a priority that this country knows and controls who enters it.

We are the only country in the world that refuses to secure our borders. In legal immigration alone, last year we took in more immigrants than all the countries in the world combined!

The argument that we are unable to do it is bogus. I'm not buying it. If fences and/or walls don't work, why do they put one around the White House? Why are prisons fenced?
MileHighBronco Wrote:Come on, Karl. Are you really saying that we don't have the ABILITY? What we don't have from our political class is the WANT TO. The various interests - big business, racial preference groups, etc. have made it too lucrative for most politicians to really rock the boat about actually DOING what the laws we've been passing since 1986 said they would do.

If it's about spending, these clowns up there would much rather spend billions on pork and earmarks than on putting the $$ behind enforcing our borders. This is the country that put a man on the moon. It's do-able but for many reasons, squishy pols would rather pander for (hoped for) future voters than actually fund and make it a priority that this country knows and controls who enters it.

We are the only country in the world that refuses to secure our borders. In legal immigration alone, last year we took in more immigrants than all the countries in the world combined!

The argument that we are unable to do it is bogus. I'm not buying it. If fences and/or walls don't work, why do they put one around the White House? Why are prisons fenced?


I....WILL...NOT..participate in...political...threads...I will NOT...Participate 03-banghead
MileHighBronco Wrote:Come on, Karl. Are you really saying that we don't have the ABILITY? What we don't have from our political class is the WANT TO. The various interests - big business, racial preference groups, etc. have made it too lucrative for most politicians to really rock the boat about actually DOING what the laws we've been passing since 1986 said they would do.

If it's about spending, these clowns up there would much rather spend billions on pork and earmarks than on putting the $$ behind enforcing our borders. This is the country that put a man on the moon. It's do-able but for many reasons, squishy pols would rather pander for (hoped for) future voters than actually fund and make it a priority that this country knows and controls who enters it.

We are the only country in the world that refuses to secure our borders. In legal immigration alone, last year we took in more immigrants than all the countries in the world combined!

The argument that we are unable to do it is bogus. I'm not buying it. If fences and/or walls don't work, why do they put one around the White House? Why are prisons fenced?

Yes, in fact that's exactly what I'm saying. We don't have the ABILITY. Nor do we have the monetary resources. Sealing our borders doesn't just mean fencing off Mexico. We don't have problems with Canadians, so we can ignore them (that's where my maternal great grandmother came over the border when the quota for Irish immigrants was already met). So assume we're just trying to keep out Hispanics (that IS what we're talking about afterall)...You've got to seal off the southern east coast, all of Florida, the Gulf Coast, and everything west of it. Cannot be done. And even if it could, why in the hell should we want that?? We haven't been that country in 231 years, and I'm in no hurry to become that country.

They fence in the White House to keep Bush away from the rest of us and to keep Cheney from pooping on the sidewalks. Also, to try to keep people out. But people still get on the grounds. Prisons are fenced to keep people in, but they still manage to get out. What makes you think a border thousands of miles long can be sealed even that well?

I don't expect to change your mind or anyone else's. But I also don't expect to allow nonsense that tries to pass for intelligent discussion to go unchallenged. This is nonsense.
Karl - I'm not suggesting that we could seal up the border 100%. What I am saying is that we could reduce the successful flow into the thousands instead of the millions. I'm also not saying that their shouldn't be "Legal" immigration, but I think it's crazy to just allow what is going on now.

Hell, I'd be in favor of reducing the troops in Iraq and redeploying them along the border instead of just training at bases in the U.S. interior.

The biggest difference between the Canadians and Hispanics is this.....the vast majority of Canadians come to the US for a period of time, then THEY GO BACK HOME. Too many hispanics on the other hand, come here & then NEVER GO HOME.

Karl - you & I disagree...I think we have the ability to control the border if we want to - especially if we would ever get off the hang-up of allowing at least some of the military to help protect our borders. The fact is, those in power DO NOT WANT TO STOP THE FLOW OF CHEAP LABOR.
Sorry, but not sealing the border 100%? Won't do. If we're going to pay billions of dollars to "seal" our border, it had better be sealed. Otherwise, my money could be better spent on real issues.
You want to fix the problem? REALLY fix the problem? Demand proof of citizenship or legal status any time a government service is requested, like benefit checks, health care, schooling, etc. Those that are coming here trying for the better life and willing to work hard for it should still manage to make it.
Karl, your suggestion about requiring that documents be checked is a good one, in terms of accessing services. It should be done but a secure, tamper proof ID is a necessity as identity theft and forgery are rampant nationwide.

As to my saying we need to secure the border being nonsense, you must know that you are in the minority here by a large margin.

I understand that it may well be near impossible to completely 100% stop people from entering this country illegally. But because a few may slip in and it's not absolutely, positively 100% secured is a reason we shouldn't try? Now THAT is what I call nonsense.

The Border Patrol estimates that up to 5,000 a day successfully enter this country each day across our southern border, simply by walking and wading across.

If a fence and/or wall stops the majority of the human smuggling and drug cartel smuggling it is worth it. Most Americans say that border control is needed and desired on nearly every poll I've seen.

If we do that and find that the Canadian border becomes the major entry point, then we begin fortifying that border further. I doubt that many hispanics that now enter from Mexico would travel that far north to enter there due to the costs involved. Terrorists may be a different story.

The overstaying of visitors on VISAs is almost as large of a problem in terms as the number of those here illegally. Interior enforcement is supposedly done by only 2,000 agents trying to find and deport 1.5 million illegals already ordered deported who have disappeared. There are millions more whose whereabouts we don't know.

As to not spending any resources if the border is not 100% secure in order to use your money on REAL issues, what would those real issues be? Are you saying that the invasion of this country by illegals is not a real issue?

The Senate today killed this bad legislation. Maybe they will figure out that first we need to stop the flow coming in and then take the time needed so that our entire immigration system and bureaucracy can be overhauled and strengthened. The entire system is broken and needs fixing. The fact that Americans needing passports for their vacations this summer couldn't get them in time due to a swamped bureaucracy ought to be a sign that USICS isn't equipped to deal with another 12-20 million "customers" that this legislation would have added.

I know that I will not change the mind of anybody on this issue. I live in an area of this country that has seen dramatic impacts from illegal immigration. I see it every day - even in my own neighborhood. It is not personal but a policy issue and one in which our government has failed us miserably over the years.
Alright, explain to me exactly HOW those illegals "invading" our country are a problem. What is it they do that has created such a stir? Perhaps I AM in the minority, but I'm ok with that. I want to solve the PROBLEM, not the symptom. The problem isn't that they're here. The problem is that they're straining the resources of the communities they're in. You know, the schools, hospitals, etc. When my kids were registered for kindergarten years ago, we had to provide their birth certificates...proof that they belong where we say they belong. It's not too much to ask that anyone applying for government services do likewise. And it's a damn sight cheaper and more effective than trying to wall off our borders. Let's face it...an awful lot of the folks that are bent out of shape about this are upset about LANGUAGE...English vs. Spanish. Remember the attempt a few years ago to make English the official language of the US? That failed, so the latest attempt involves "sealing our borders". It's nonsense, pure and simple. Use the ID program, quit printing every government document bilingually, and the problem will solve itself in a very short time. It worked for every other ethnic group to come to this country.
Karl is correct, IMO. It is the effect of the countless "illegals" on every level of government and community.

The problem is that there is money to be made, frankly by those who don't need it, politicans and big business.
Additionally, they make this money not in an attempt to help these poor folks but to use them. Yes, I know that could be said for any human interaction, but there is absolutely no excuse for the pols and little that is acceptable for big biz.

The money either blinds or corrupts these folks in ways that they either no longer see the problem or choose to continue milking it for personal gain. And in that lays the problem some of us have with the "plans". They are always made, NEVER executed fully and consistently. They are circumvented by loopholes, in the name of "humanity", economic gain, political expediency and power grab.

The one common theme I hear from those that opposed what recently failed as legislation and that almost all of the supporters either miss or refuse to understand is this: You (the gov't) tell us you are going to do more than what you promised before but never did to begin with. Why should I believe you now?

However, as Karl correctly said, the strain, the effect, is the problem.
What is the solution? Stop the activity that results in the effect(s).
1. Stop the influx of humanity from continuing coming into the country
with little or no impediment.
2. Remove the financial gain to employers, families that have babies
born in the US and the criminals that come over at will.
3. Sit Mexico down and make them either to cooperate immediately
or to be severly punished. The criminal activity that is tolerated at
the border towns is incomprehenisible. Since they wont do anything
the US government should. If that means a clean sweep of these
towns by US military fine. How long would you put up with an
unruly "neighbor" who continuely disrespected you by harrassing
your family, at times doing physical harm, throwing all their waste
over into your yard, sells narcotics out of their house, sells other
vice out of their house all resulting in more of the same to spill over
into additional yards in the 'hood.

Would you negotiate? Plead? Ignore? Ask the parents of the parents to step in? Call the cops? Again? And Again?

Where does it stop? How? Why?
Interesting, Karl. You asked and answered your own question.

Quote:Alright, explain to me exactly HOW those illegals "invading" our country are a problem. What is it they do that has created such a stir?

.....I want to solve the PROBLEM, not the symptom. The problem isn't that they're here. The problem is that they're straining the resources of the communities they're in. You know, the schools, hospitals, etc.

We're actually not that far apart in our views. As far as I can see, the major difference is in my view that unless we stop them from entering, the problem only grows larger.

Many of these folks crossing the southern border come from a culture of lawlessness and corruption. To survive here, they have to engage in further lawlessness - fradulent documents, forgery, identity theft, etc. Nobody wants to talk about the criminal elements coming over in large numbers. Drunken driving, driving without licenses or insurance are common occurrences, which are seen as no big deal where they come from. Who is paying the price? Average Americans, victimized through no fault of their own.

It seems that one party seems totally fine with the invasion (on "humanitarian grounds" of course). They worry about families being torn apart if somebody is deported. If an American citizen is sentenced for a crime and sent to jail, isn't a family torn apart? What's the difference? Both knew what they were doing was wrong. The difference is that the illegal immigrant knows that this country usually doesn't do much to those in their circumstance. We look the other way.

The problem is, taking in this large a number of low education, low skilled people from one part of the world in such a short time will lead to the balkanization of this country, with no need to assimilate. Thus, the politically correct among us will see no problem with insisting that WE accomodate them - printing all documents in their language, for example. "Press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish, etc....." This, to me, is suicidal. Your answers are common sense but won't happen due to political correctness and the perception that doing so would be mean. It's insanity.

I believe that the solution is to break the immigration problems down into pieces, not try to cram them all into one piece of legislation that tries to do everything and accomplishes nothing.

One bill for border security and interior enforcement and establishment of a national secure ID.

One bill addressing our system of legal immigration.

One bill addressing how to deal with those already here.

One bill addressing a guest worker program.

To me this approach makes sense, which is why this will never happen.
MileHighBronco Wrote: To me this approach makes sense, which is why this will never happen.

If things that make sense to you never happen, could it be that the problem is not with everybody else? ;-)
One bill for border security and interior enforcement and establishment of a national secure ID.

One bill addressing our system of legal immigration.

One bill addressing how to deal with those already here.

One bill addressing a guest worker program.
______________________________________________________

The politicians absolutley do not want to tackle the problem in this fashion. It's too simple......it would be more difficult to add on 50 amendments of pork to get lost in the shuffle. Lets be real, too many of those in congress really could care less about immigration except as it pertains to possibly more votes or more campaign contributions. We need to add more amendments for bridges to no-where, etc.

I guess I've just become too cynical about politics. It just seems as though the Pols worry way too much about their own self interests & not about what is best for the country.

I'm really not against immigration....Hell, virtually all of us are the decendents of immigrants. I just really think that we need to control it & have some semblance of an idea of what foreign nationals are in our country. Right now, it's basically carte blanche "if you can sneak in - stay as long and do whatever you want for as long as you like."
Nor am I against immigration. It's just that our approach to it is a mess and what we have is chaos.

Quote:If things that make sense to you never happen, could it be that the problem is not with everybody else? ;-)

Good one Rocket, I guess I'm pwned. :ncaabbs:

What I mean is that things that seem to be common sense don't appear that way to the D.C. crowd. They'd rather muck up the water than clarify. Easier to find cover that way.
H2O,
I would say you have a watered down argument, but I see to date in this thread you have offered nothing of substance.

Please join in with some constructive insight, solutions or rebuttal.

As it pertains to making sense(?) it would not make sense for most if not all pols to have a simple up or down vote or one bill with no amendments because of two reasons.
1. They would be accountable. They could not say they did not know
what was in the "brief" provided on the Hillary. Oh sorry, Bill.

2. They can't roll out the pork barrel in the dark of night to pay back
contributors and payoff constituents.

As I said before, it is about the money individuals can make off the system which makes it off the backs of those who can least afford it.

Pols don't really make a whole lot while in office, at least in salary, but they sure do by setting up a security net for family and friends with jobs, connections:rolltide:, and discounted commodity transactions. Not to mention their tax payer funded pensions?

But who would change it? The Pol next in line? Their economic concubines? Nardowell family members?

I know I know. Everyone is doing it. Well then, now you know what your ankles are for. Lean forward, bend down. Grab them ankles.
gobaseline Wrote:H2O,
I would say you have a watered down argument, but I see to date in this thread you have offered nothing of substance.


I so rarely do. OK, baseline-I offer some rebuttal while maintaining my tradition of offering nothing of substance. Don't try this at home, I'm a trained professional: Ready? Here it goes: You're wrong! ;-)

Oh, what the Heck-the immigration thing? Way too complex for any simple solution. Bottom line for me is its illegal and if our laws are to mean anything we need to show people there are consequences for breaking them. Conferring rewards for breaking them sends the wrong message. But we are way too late in addressing this to try to move all the illegals out. We can't control the borders because, as Karl mentions, its way too big. We need to expand our efforts there but all we can hope for is to slow things down. I am sort of intrigued by the idea of some sort of buy in through national public service but have no comprehensive solution. Too many sides to the argument. When we go to world government with no borders it won't matter anyway. I'm out.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's