Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sen. Frist: What's Wrong With This Bill?  
User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

Sen. Frist will oppose the immigration reform bill that was voted 12-6 in favor by the Senate Judiciary Committee, with four Republicans and all Democrats supporting it. http://us.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/29/immigration/index.html

Why? Because the Majority Leader doesn't want any legal path that would allow a legal status to millions of illegal aliens living and working in the country. On his own words: "I disagree with this approach, not just as a matter of principle, but because granting amnesty now will only encourage future and further disrespect for the law."

Nice wording, Mr. Majority Leader. Sadly, your words are not good enough to hide the reality behind this bill: There is not an amnesty! As Sen. Specter said, "allowing people already in the country illegally to eventually obtain legal status would not be "amnesty" because it would require them to pay $2,000 in fines, undergo a background check, learn English and work for six years before being granted permanent residency."

You see? It's not like filling a form and getting fast track citizenship . Only the ones that work hard, speak English and are law-abiding will get permanent residency. One those good guys are clear, our government will have an easier time finding and deporting the bad ones and preventing more illegal immigrants.

Of course, you support a guest worker program. Your "big money" friends would not expect less from you. Cheap labor is always welcome, right?

Good luck in 2008, Senator Frist. I look forward for your ads in Spanish telling us that, once you become president, you will look after us.

[Edited 2006-03-30 06:14:08]

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

Quoting SFOMEX (Thread starter):
Nice wording, Mr. Majority Leader. Sadly, your words are not good enough to hide the reality behind this bill: There is not an amnesty! As Sen. Specter said, "allowing people already in the country illegally to eventually obtain legal status would not be "amnesty" because it would require them to pay $2,000 in fines, undergo a background check, learn English and work for six years before being granted permanent residency."

One of our company's senior managers, a Dutch citizen, spent almost $10,000 in legal fees and temporary visas and 6 years working legally within the system to obtain his green card. The bill you're now advocating means that he would have been $8.000 better off by breaking the law. Seems unfair to me. Punish those who follow the law and reward those who don't.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1968 times:

Sen. Frist is to busy catering to the far right wing to gain support for his presidental bid. Somebody needs to take him aside,and tell him that being majority leader and runnning for president doesn't mix. By taking extreme positions he only hurts the party even more. In doing this he only makes a fool of himself remember Teri Schavo? Anyway, he has a much of a chance being elected President of the United States, as a snowball in you know where  boggled 

User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1959 times:

Quoting SFOMEX (Thread starter):
Good luck in 2008, Senator Frist. I look forward for your ads in Spanish telling us that, once you become president, you will look after us.

Well, he's Senate leader of your beloved GOP.

Reap what you sow.

I'm curious if you'd be as vehemently opposed to this ludicrous bill proposed by this simpering twit of a man if the majority of illegals in this country were, say, of Chinese descent. Or are you all riled up only because the majority of those victimized by this bill are of latino descent? From what I've read on these boards, you've always jumped to the defense of all sorts of really paleolithic social initiatives trotted out by the GOP. Now that it seems to affect those of your ethnic/social background, you're up in arms. The doctrine of fairness shouldn't be based on mere tribalism alone, don't you think?

Quoting Pope (Reply 1):
One of our company's senior managers, a Dutch citizen, spent almost $10,000 in legal fees and temporary visas and 6 years working legally within the system to obtain his green card. The bill you're now advocating means that he would have been $8.000 better off by breaking the law. Seems unfair to me. Punish those who follow the law and reward those who don't

I'm curious of your firm paid for this Dutch senior manager to get his green card. Most firms usually do for their research scientists, engineers, top level management, etc. And even those who don't often sponsor them (for example, my Dad was a senior manager for Exxon in NYC in the 60s and 70s, and the company obtained green cards for all of us which led to US citizenship eventually). However, while you raise a valid point about overall fairness and working within the system, there is a big difference between a senior manager making a six figure income and a marginally educated blue collar or farm worker coming to work for less than minimum wage in the US (often just to survive). The former can afford to work within the system; the latter often cannot. Yes, it sucks at one level, but for skilled professionals, working within the system reaps big awards (high paying jobs, the guarantee of security, etc.), while for those at the bottom of the barrel, the system is often stacked against them and is often punitive. The sooner we realize that our immigration system is broke and put together piece meal, the better off we will be. For one we need to realize that we have a border with a Third World nation and that the poor will always seek to better their lives at all cost. Thus, create a viable guest worker program with Mexico for starters.


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2040 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1957 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
By taking extreme positions he only hurts the party even more.

It's not an extreme position. Look at the poles. The majority of the America does NOT support keeping anyone illegal here.

Quoting SFOMEX (Thread starter):
Nice wording, Mr. Majority Leader. Sadly, your words are not good enough to hide the reality behind this bill: There is not an amnesty! As Sen. Specter said, "allowing people already in the country illegally to eventually obtain legal status would not be "amnesty" because it would require them to pay $2,000 in fines, undergo a background check, learn English and work for six years before being granted permanent residency."

YES. It is amnesty. There is a big problem with this. Why would you, as an illegal, go turn yourself in and pay the fine and learn how to speak english, if, you are already doing it illegally and getting by with it? They are law breakers now, and I see them to continue to be law breakers because I don't see many of them running to pay $2,000 and learn english to do something they already are.

Listen, SFOMEX, while you and I agree on many things political, letting illegals stay in this country is 100% wrong. They "jumped" the line to get here, broke the law, and continue to break the law. You say they provide labor necessary labor and should be able to stay. I say, at what price? For the past 10 or so years, they've created hell on our health care industry. Look how many hospitals in California alone closed because they couldn't last providing free health care to illegals. Look at how our schools have come down, catering to "spanish" speaking illegals. Look how many car accidents have occurred with illegals driving with no insurance, leaving legal citizens paying the bill. These illegals have gone way past just "providing labor Americans won't do."

They need to go back, start their protests up back in their own country and change THEIR government.

They are illegal, and you want to reward them for their breaking of the law and costing us U.S. citizens billions of dollars catering to them.

They go back. I hope Frist continues on with his bill. I really see the whole thing dead in a month.. but at least it's a start.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 4):
They are illegal, and you want to reward them for their breaking of the law and costing us U.S. citizens billions of dollars catering to them.

Ask the average American family the following question:

"Would you rather pay $ 12.50 for a pound of tomatoes or allow illegal migrants to work?"

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 4):
Look how many hospitals in California alone closed because they couldn't last providing free health care to illegals.

Do tell.
How many?

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 4):
Look how many car accidents have occurred with illegals driving with no insurance, leaving legal citizens paying the bill.

Again. Do tell.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 4):
Look at how our schools have come down, catering to "spanish" speaking illegals.

Our schools have dumbed down for a number of reasons. "Catering to spanish speaking illegals" is not the primary reason. Poor funding, wretched physical plants and the socio-economic status of the school district residents are primary causes.

Lets not scapegoat these people for a variety of social ills in the absence of direct evidence.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 3):
I'm curious of your firm paid for this Dutch senior manager to get his green card.

Yes we did. Which makes it sting even more. We follow the law and are economically punished for doing so. Other companies (i.e. Walmart) break the law by turning a blind eye toward these immigration laws and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. What incentive do members of a society have to obey the rule of law if enforcement is so subjective. The incentive is there to break the law because the penalties are so minor.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 3):
However, while you raise a valid point about overall fairness and working within the system, there is a big difference between a senior manager making a six figure income and a marginally educated blue collar or farm worker coming to work for less than minimum wage in the US (often just to survive).

Now Jay, this is where I have to raise a red flag. You've often ranted about the bifurcated legal / justice system in the US when it benefits the wealthy. I agree with your previous statements that equal justice means equal justice for all regardless of economic condition. But if we accept that notion, then there cannot be a justice system that condones either class breaking the law, be that Ken Lay at Enron or be that Jose Jimenez at the Rio Grande.

I've got very mixed feelings about the immigration situation. My family came from Argentina in the mid-1970's. At first we were on temporary visas as my father had been transferred here for work. We applied for green cards and the process was snagged until 2 days before we were to leave. We managed to get our Congressperson involved and he fixed the problem with INS. But had he not done so we would have left - the apartment was literally all packed up.

I'm for an open door immigration policy so long as everyone who comes to this country comes willing to work and to contribute. I don't believe we can continue to fund social programs for those who come and do not contribute. School systems throughout the border states are stretched to the breaking point. Hospital and social services are equally strained. While there are countless humanitarian reasons why we should afford everyone here equal access to services, the fiscal realities require that we draw a line somewhere.

If you come and don't contribute, you should be put on the next, bus, train or plane back from where you came.


User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Personally I think this has more to do with Sen. Frist's presidential ambitions than it does about addressing immigration problems. Such crass populism, though, is likely to backfire. The Republican Party has been trying to woo Hispanic voters for years, and the House bill and Sen. Frist's proposals have had the effect of angering and alienating an increasingly important block of voters, and betrays the Party's addiction of pandering to its lunatic fringe at the expense of the public interest.

Charles, SJ



The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Somebody needs to take him aside,and tell him that being majority leader and runnning for president doesn't mix.

It sure didn't work for bob dole.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 4):
It's not an extreme position. Look at the poles. The majority of the America does NOT support keeping anyone illegal here.

Oh but they do support it. Maybe they don't think they support it, but the majority of Americans don't think about what the illegals do to make their costs cheaper, especially when they're asked a heavily worded biased question about illegals in America. They don't have time to think

"well illegal immigrants are the reason produce grown in the US is still fairly cheap, and they're also the reason that beef and pork is inexpensive to anyone who wants to purchase it, and of course, you can't discount their construction efforts...their lack of want for healthcare and other benefits makes employing them in construction projects so cheap! if they get hurt or something, they can't do anything about it because they're illegal! I love illegal immigrants!"

yeah. Americans love illegal immigrants.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 5):
Our schools have dumbed down for a number of reasons. "Catering to spanish speaking illegals" is not the primary reason.

Amen dude. there is not one shred of evidence out there that suggests the schools in this country have gone on a decline because of "spanish speaking illegals." There is far more evidence that suggests we have pretty much done it to ourselves with very few external factors involved.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 4):
The majority of the America does NOT support keeping anyone illegal here.

Oh really? I've heard this claim trumpeted around a lot lately, but nobody has ever posted a source for it.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 4):
For the past 10 or so years, they've created hell on our health care industry. Look how many hospitals in California alone closed because they couldn't last providing free health care to illegals. Look at how our schools have come down, catering to "spanish" speaking illegals. Look how many car accidents have occurred with illegals driving with no insurance, leaving legal citizens paying the bill.

Again, do you have sources for all these claims? Perhaps some studies to back up what you are saying?



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineJoness0154 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 9):
Again, do you have sources for all these claims? Perhaps some studies to back up what you are saying?

The hospital thing is quite true. My grandma lives in Green Valley, AZ (home of the titan missile museum) and they refuse to build a hospital there because of worries over the illegals crossing the border and seeking free medical care. The closest one is in Tucson, about 30 minutes away. My dad worries about her daily because of this.



I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem
User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 5):
Ask the average American family the following question:

"Would you rather pay $ 12.50 for a pound of tomatoes or allow illegal migrants to work?"

Sorry, but the price of tomatoes would not rise to $12.50.

Per the Center for Immigration Studies: (it's from 1996, but the concept would be the same).

http://www.cis.org/articles/1996/back296.htm
The removal of illegal workers from the seasonal agricultural workforce would increase the summer-fall supermarket prices of fresh fruits and vegetables by about 6 percent in the short run and 3 percent in the intermediate term. During the winter-spring seasons, prices would rise more than 3 percent in the short term and less then 2 percent in the intermediate term. Imports would increase about 1 percent.

It would increase the costs only very marginally.


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

Quoting Joness0154 (Reply 10):
My grandma lives in Green Valley, AZ (home of the titan missile museum) and they refuse to build a hospital there because of worries over the illegals crossing the border and seeking free medical care. The closest one is in Tucson, about 30 minutes away. My dad worries about her daily because of this.

This doesn't mean it's true...knowing the sheer amount of elderly people living in that part of AZ, it is quite possible that they have a stigma attached to this, and most likely over estimate the amount of money and number illegal immigrants who would use the hospital. "Worries" don't equate with absolute fact.

Not saying that all elderly are immigrant haters or anything like that, but knowing who I do (grandparents, their friends, etc...) this premise cannot be overlooked...



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineJoness0154 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

http://cbs2.com/health/healthla_story_132162016.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041206-102115-6766r.htm



I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1898 times:

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 11):
Sorry, but the price of tomatoes would not rise to $12.50.

Undoubtedly not.

But that statement was a highly inflammatory one based in the same kind of non-reality that statements like "illegals are causing our healthcare to collapse and steal our cars" are.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 11):
Per the Center for Immigration Studies: (it's from 1996, but the concept would be the same).

http://www.cis.org/articles/1996/back296.htm
The removal of illegal workers from the seasonal agricultural workforce would increase the summer-fall supermarket prices of fresh fruits and vegetables by about 6 percent in the short run and 3 percent in the intermediate term. During the winter-spring seasons, prices would rise more than 3 percent in the short term and less then 2 percent in the intermediate term. Imports would increase about 1 percent.

Sorry, but the CIS is a blatantly partisan organisation whose "research" has been exposed to be driven more by the answer they seek than the research process itself. The Economist seems to think differently from CIS where it projects food price increases at a heftier 20%. See “ Oh, say, can you see?” The Economist (March 9, 2000).

bCIS was founded in 1985 as a think tank to support the more activist work of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). It hides this fact on its ludicrous website where it pretends to be non-partisan. Although it describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan,” its studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its restrictionist agenda and it works closely on Capitol Hill with immigration restrictionists mostly in the GOP. It supports the views of such people as Peter Brimelow, a British immigrant to the US, who over his life in the US has argued against immigration to the US (read the irony there), especially against non-white immigrants. Among CIS's biggest detractors is the Wall Street Journal.

While I'm sure that the CIS isn't a completely fraudulent research organisation, its dubious ties and dodgy agenda should encourage one to look at their findings with a big pinch of salt.


User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1890 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 4):
For the past 10 or so years, they've created hell on our health care industry. Look how many hospitals in California alone closed because they couldn't last providing free health care to illegals. Look at how our schools have come down, catering to "spanish" speaking illegals. Look how many car accidents have occurred with illegals driving with no insurance, leaving legal citizens paying the bill. These illegals have gone way past just "providing labor Americans won't do."

Sorry, but that's false. The reason healthcare for the poor (legal or illegal) is so expensive is because access to basic medical care for this sector of the population is virtually non-existant, and the costs for office visits are prohibitively expensive. What happens as a result is that people are forced to wait until a condition becomes serious and have to go to the ER, which is an expensive option to begin with, and then have to be treated for a condition that could have been prevented or controlled far less expensively if the situation is caught early and people get the proper help. And the suggestion that hospitals are overrun with car accidents is simply ludicrous.

Suggesting that illegal immigrants are parasites is simply absurd. If anything, we're sponging off of them in our quest for cheap commodities, while self-rightiously saying we have no obligation to them born on a premise of institutionalized selfishness.

Charles, SJ



The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

Quoting Ctbarnes (Reply 15):
Sorry, but that's false. The reason healthcare for the poor (legal or illegal) is so expensive is because access to basic medical care for this sector of the population is virtually non-existant, and the costs for office visits are prohibitively expensive. What happens as a result is that people are forced to wait until a condition becomes serious and have to go to the ER, which is an expensive option to begin with, and then have to be treated for a condition that could have been prevented or controlled far less expensively if the situation is caught early and people get the proper help. And the suggestion that hospitals are overrun with car accidents is simply ludicrous.

For the sake of argument, let's accept everything you've said. Why should someone here illegally (and as of today at least, they are here illegally) be entitled to taxpayer funded services? Again, I raise the bigger policy question, what sort of message do we send by providing incentives for people to break the law.


User currently offlineTIA From Albania, joined Mar 2006, 524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 1):
One of our company's senior managers, a Dutch citizen, spent almost $10,000 in legal fees and temporary visas and 6 years working legally within the system to obtain his green card. The bill you're now advocating means that he would have been $8.000 better off by breaking the law. Seems unfair to me. Punish those who follow the law and reward those who don't.

I am not advocating for illegal immigration, but your comparing apples to oranges. That Dutch guy had the possibility to get a green card the legal way, while most of the illegals don't have such opportunity. Even the $8000 difference you are quoting doesn't change anything since I wouldn't be surprised if illegals paid close to that sum to cross the border. Again, I am not condoning illegal border crossing, but you can't compare a guy who had many options and chose the right one, to a guy who only had one option.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

Quoting TIA (Reply 17):
I am not advocating for illegal immigration, but your comparing apples to oranges. That Dutch guy had the possibility to get a green card the legal way, while most of the illegals don't have such opportunity. Even the $8000 difference you are quoting doesn't change anything since I wouldn't be surprised if illegals paid close to that sum to cross the border. Again, I am not condoning illegal border crossing, but you can't compare a guy who had many options and chose the right one, to a guy who only had one option.

Are we or are we not a country of laws? If I pay someone to steal an $8,000 diamond and pay them $8,000 to do this, is the fact that I paid $8,000 to someone a defense to the crime? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that over 1 million people legally immigrate to the US every year. The opportunity of the American dream exists for them. We are taking about the the 500,000 or so illegals who's very first act on US soil is a federal crime.

There are very many Mexicans who go through the consular process and get their visas. We cannot condone a system that encourages people to break the law and then rewards them for doing so.


User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Frist, because immegration is not a black and white issue. Secondly, many do have social security cards and do pay social security taxes. Thirdly, are you willing to let someone bleed to death in a hospital emergency room simply because they are in the country illegally, and quite possibly are there because they were injured on the job due to unsafe working conditions.

This is not purely a legal issue. It is a moral issue too, particularly given the net contribtion they make to the economy. Simply banging on about their being here illegally bespeaks a failure to understand the issues at stake. It is far more complex than that and any solution must take into account that complexity. Simplistic, short term solutions sound nice, make politicians look good to their consituants, but they ultimately fail because no one stops to think through all the implications.

If you want another example, just look at the war on drugs, which also fails due to the same myopic short-sighted mindset.

Charles, SJ



The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26338 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 6):
Yes we did. Which makes it sting even more. We follow the law and are economically punished for doing so.

One senior manager at $10,000, which is a mere fraction of their compensation, as opposed to thousands at $2000, a far larger fraction of their compensation and in an industry far less likely to pay for it. There is no comparison at all

Quoting Pope (Reply 16):
For the sake of argument, let's accept everything you've said. Why should someone here illegally (and as of today at least, they are here illegally) be entitled to taxpayer funded services? Again, I raise the bigger policy question, what sort of message do we send by providing incentives for people to break the law.

People in most any country are entitled to emergency services that are taxpayer funded, no matter their status. Then again, I suppose there are some who would rather people be allowed to die in a pool of their own blood if they can't pay.

[Edited 2006-03-30 21:29:17]


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1873 times:

Quoting Ctbarnes (Reply 19):
Frist, because immegration is not a black and white issue. Secondly, many do have social security cards and do pay social security taxes. Thirdly, are you willing to let someone bleed to death in a hospital emergency room simply because they are in the country illegally, and quite possibly are there because they were injured on the job due to unsafe working conditions.

Isn't that a circular argument. They come here illegally for a job. In order to get that job (i.e. pass the I9 verification) they get an illegal social security card. Then they get injured in the job they shouldn't have been performing in the first place (using the scenario in your example)? BTW - do you have any statistic on what % of illegals pay social security taxes?

What about the pregnant mothers who come here just to deliver their baby? Should their intentional act of breaking the law be rewarded? If so, why even have an immigration policy. Let's just open the doors and let everyone in on moral grounds. Where do you draw the line?


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 18):
The fact of the matter is that over 1 million people legally immigrate to the US every year. The opportunity of the American dream exists for them. We are taking about the the 500,000 or so illegals who's very first act on US soil is a federal crime.

True enough.

But you're ignoring the reality that trumps legality here. And that is the fact that we share a unique border like none other where the mere act of crossing it is a quantum leap from the Third to the First World. That itself changes the dynamics of the issue. The majority of legal immigrants tend to be middle class residents of their own countries; the majority of illegal immigrants tend to be the desperately poor of Mexico.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 22):
But you're ignoring the reality that trumps legality here. And that is the fact that we share a unique border like none other where the mere act of crossing it is a quantum leap from the Third to the First World. That itself changes the dynamics of the issue. The majority of legal immigrants tend to be middle class residents of their own countries; the majority of illegal immigrants tend to be the desperately poor of Mexico.

OK, so where do you draw the line? How can we open the border just a little? Should the policy be limited to just Mexicans or should all member of the Latin America's poor be entitled to come to the US? If so, why limit it to that and not all poor from anywhere? If we're justifying this on moral grounds, why is a poor Mexican any more deserving of an opportunity than a poor Guatemalan or a poor Ethiopian?

[Edited 2006-03-30 21:54:46]

User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
One senior manager at $10,000, which is a mere fraction of their compensation, as opposed to thousands at $2000, a far larger fraction of their compensation and in an industry far less likely to pay for it. There is no comparison at all

I love it. Now we've got the left arguing that there should be two systems of law in this country. One that applies only the rich and another that applies only to the poor. Hypocrisy pure and simple.

I would love to see you make that argument in your law school class.


25 Ctbarnes : Yes it is a circular argument, and it is yet another reason why the problem is so intractable and does not respond to simplistic solutions. Employers
26 Ctbarnes : ... But it is plausible to argue we already have one. Charles, SJ
27 11Bravo : What do the poles have to do with this issue? I can understand why you would examine the polls, but I don't see the use of looking at poles in this c
28 Pope : Then what are you suggesting. Specifically.
29 Pope : You seem very quick to say that it happens far less often than I think but at the same time you seem to conceed that you don't have reliable figures.
30 N1120A : Not saying there should be. This is written as a one off thing in order to deal with a significantly different situation and a significantly larger p
31 Pope : So your advocating a "one off" difference in our legal system as a result of income. You might want to go ask you professor what "equal protection" m
32 N1120A : I am well aware of what equal protection means. What was your position on gay marriage again (actually can't remember, might be one of the few things
33 Post contains links Pope : Go see for yourself (I've posted the link below). I believe that my position is quite clear on the matter that equal protection should govern the leg
34 Post contains images Gilligan : The first thing that will happen is that lawyers will win injuctions against the fines, find away to have the background checks declared unconstituti
35 N1120A : So the baby or mother's life should be put at risk? Also, it doesn't matter where the baby is born, a back alley in El Centro is still part of the US
36 Ctbarnes : Define 'They.' I know this because I have worked in healthcare for the last 25 years, including administration, patient care and more recently in the
37 N1120A : Um, it creates different standards for citizenship. If you are a good skater, you can be a US citizen without going through the normal processes, if
38 Pope : Does your guest worker plan contain an amnesty program for people already here? Is it limited to just Mexicans? Does it have a cut-off or does anyone
39 SFOMEX : I believe that is quite clear I'm a social conservative and a proud Republican. However, you could do some research to find the many times I've poste
40 Post contains images Ctbarnes : Oh, give me a break. If you're that desparate for figures, go look them up yourself. I have more important things to do than produce a research proje
41 Pope : Charles, Three cop-outs in one post. So as of now, you've been unable to defend a moral basis for your arbitrary position, you're unwilling to even st
42 Post contains images Ctbarnes : Sorry I got so testy. I'm trying to get a take-home exam done. I probably shouldn't even be posting in the first place. Charles, SJ
43 Gilligan : No, but unless she is in the throws of labor she should be transported right back to the border and sent back to Mexico. If she has the baby here and
44 Post contains links GuitrThree : Ok.. then just go here and read on... I suggest this to everyone here... http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
45 N1120A : Except that that is not the way it works in the US. Constitutionally, anyone born in the US, no matter why and for what reason, they are a citizen. I
46 GuitrThree : Which is true. I also agree this law shouldn't be changed. But remember, the CHILD is the citizen and not the mother. So... you give the mother a cho
47 Gilligan : And that is one area where I support a Constitutional ammendment. When the Constitution was written getting pregnant in europe and making it here bef
48 GuitrThree : I would choose to follow the law. I'll say it again. If we tell the mother that she must return with or without the child, then this practice of suck
49 Post contains links Joness0154 : http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3761864.html Way to go Fox.... you're a nutbag
50 Travelin man : From the article: In Mexico City, a band of about 200 demonstrators protested in front of the U.S. embassy against Bush's visit on Thursday, blocking
51 Post contains images SFOMEX : You get all worked up for 200 idiots out from 100 million!!!! Gee, you surely have a thin skin. Funny, Jones and Travelinman didn't notice the most i
52 Joness0154 : I would hardly call that the most important part of the article.
53 Travelin man : No, the most important part of the article says that Mexico will do nothing to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What's Wrong With This Mountain?! posted Sun Jul 4 2004 09:38:27 by 747-600X
What's Wrong With This Picture And Caption? posted Sun Mar 31 2002 21:21:16 by Tbar220
What Is Wrong With This Computer posted Mon Aug 22 2005 02:54:39 by Newark777
What The Hell Is Wrong With This Guy? posted Sat May 28 2005 22:40:32 by Alberchico
What Is Wrong With This Room? posted Tue Jul 2 2002 00:10:50 by GRZ-AIR
What Is Wrong With This Horse? posted Sat Nov 17 2001 06:00:43 by Boeing757fan
What´s Wrong With Tyra? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 11:42:29 by Solnabo
America Is Not What's Wrong With The World posted Tue Sep 26 2006 08:44:30 by UH60FtRucker
What's Wrong With Robert Ballard? posted Tue Dec 6 2005 04:41:02 by Newark777
What's Wrong With My Classic Tapestry Rug? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 00:30:01 by Matt D