Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Illegal Immigration Benefits all Americans

Democrats, and skeptical Republicans, are making much of Romney’s bobbing and weaving this past Sunday on the immigration issue and Obama’s decree that those brought here as children be shielded from deportation and given legalized status. I’m not defending Romney, he’s a politician in the arena so he’s fair game for the rotten eggs flung his way.

People on all sides want to paint this as a black and white issue, but it’s not. We have laws on the books, but we don’t enforce them, making a mockery of not just immigration laws, but all laws. Illegal immigration has a corrosive effect on our society and our souls.

Progressive nanny-staters and the Chamber of Commerce form an unholy alliance to continue bringing in second-class citizens so we can exploit them for cheap labor and add them to the cohort of government wards. We are collectively committing a human rights abuse on a grand scale. Yes, “they” come here illegally, but we put the come-hither on ‘em, we beckon them. Border enforcement is paltry, worker verification a joke, social welfare readily available with no questions asked, free school and medical care, housing and food assistance…

Can you blame people coming here illegally? 

 Put yourself in the shoes of a mom or dad. They improve their quality of life by simply crossing the border, and from their reasoned point of view, the American government can’t be serious about its laws when they give illegal immigrants access to all the same stuff a citizen gets?

Really, what separates an illegal immigrant from a citizen? They’re normalized! They work, own houses and cars and their kids graduate high school and college. They just have to look over their shoulders every now and then.

We can’t punish the children for the crimes of the parent, say those who want to legalize people brought here as children. But children are punished all the time for their parents mistakes. Parents who act irresponsibly can drive the family to poverty; the children pay. Parents who commit crimes go to jail and leave parentless children behind, so this argument doesn’t hold up.

On the other hand, does it make sense to send a person back to a country he or she has never been to? Especially if that person is a productive member of our society and we encouraged the parents to come here?

The battle lines are drawn: Liberals who have no respect for the rule of law except when it benefits them want all immigrants legalized because they need new voters. Or maybe it’s compassion? Conservatives want them all deported because rightwingers hate everybody that doesn’t look and talk like them. Or maybe they hold the quaint idea that laws should be enforced?

The Simple Solution

The simple solution is to protect our borders and enforce existing immigration law. Put worker verification in place nation-wide. Our banking system of ATMs and debit and credit cards works almost flawlessly, and you’re going to tell me we can’t verify if someone is legally entitled to work in the US or not? We have the technology. We also have to put policies in place to determine status before doling out government assistance.

If conservatives saw that government was enforcing the law, most would probably accede to liberal demands to legalize those already here who meet the criteria laid out by President Obama. But who wants solutions when festering sores and bloody shirts are so much more effective in stoking ideological fervor?

Census Bureau – Hispanic Facts
Americans Favor Arizona Immigration Law
Pew Hispanic Center
NRO – Hispanic Poll Results
TNR – Immigrants and Job Creation

36 comments:

dakotas5 said...

I know this is way too simple for our poly-ticksians but slam the borders shut. If you're here you"re here. If you aren't a citizens and commit violent crimes we throw your ass over the fence. Then go back to following the immigration laws we have.

Always On Watch said...

Immigration control is so bollixed up that the situation beggars belief.

Liberal bleeding heart or conservative hardhearted legalist -- it isn't that simple, is it?

I favor HUGE fines for employers with illegals on their employment rolls. I personally know individuals who have lost their jobs because illegal immigrants nabbed the jobs at lower wages AND opted out of the healthcare plan offered by the employers. Indeed, in 2008, Mr. AOW lost his job of 12 years to such a situation in the auto-parts-warehouse industry. The same happened in the home-building industry. I'm sure that similar things are going on all over America.

Fredd said...

I guess I must be on the heartless conservative side of the issue, when I have no sympathy for the fate of the loved ones of criminals.

But I am not without pity: I, too, was broken hearted when the 'Teflon Don' John Gotti, was sent off to the Big House, leaving poor, innocent, suffering wife Victoria all alone in her opulent mansion to fend for herself in a cruel, viscious America with only a couple of hundred million dollars in booty to keep the wolves from her door.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"We can’t punish the children for the crimes of the parent, say those who want to legalize people brought here as children. But children are punished all the time for their parents mistakes. Parents who act irresponsibly can drive the family to poverty; the children pay. Parents who commit crimes go to jail and leave parentless children behind, so this argument doesn’t hold up."

That's not "punishing" the children in the legal sense. What you've described are the consequences the children suffer as a result of the parents' illegal behaviors. The law does not "punish" the children of parents who commit crimes. IMO, your example doesn't fit in this case.


SF: "The battle lines are drawn: Liberals who have no respect for the rule of law except when it benefits them want all immigrants legalized because they need new voters. Or maybe it’s compassion? Conservatives want them all deported because rightwingers hate everybody that doesn’t look and talk like them. Or maybe they hold the quaint idea that laws should be enforced?"



"...in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty — a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism."

Mr. Obama's Dream Act makes the children of illegal immigrants who were brought here as infants and children ELIGIBLE for citizenship so long as they meet certain requirements.

How is this different from what President Reagan did--you know, a conservative who respects the rule of law?

Bunkerville said...

Details are not that clear. Age up to thirty after being here 5 years. Paper GEDS does the trick. So come now one and all under .30' stay 5 years and get a piece of paper.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: You answer in contained in your question...

Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill

Reagan signed a bill that was debated and passed by congress.

Comandante Obama issued an imperial edict.

Rob said...

Dakota is right - let's sidestep the landmine of what to do with the illegals who're already here. No politician is gonna have the spine to make moves against those people. Ok, so be it. Grandfather all of them in. Make them tax-owing citizens and be done with it.

BUT, stop the influx of new illegals. Shut the southern border down with our full military might and hunt down any visitors overstaying their welcome. Bring to bear all of the resources and technology to seal the borders and stop with all of the fence-building, border patrol-endangering dicking around.

Or, the alternative is to do what I've been advocating for years - seize Mexico. Just take the bitch and carve her up into another 8-10 states. Then put those new nationals to work and tax the snot outta the tourism and real estate segments and funnel all of that income into basic civic infrastructure upgrades.

conservativesonfire said...

We can or shoud do nothing about the illegals except enforce our laws until we take control of our borders. It boggles the mind that we can protect the border between North and South Korea but not our own borders. Why should Mexicans, for example, respect our laws if our government doesn't respect our laws?

FreeThinke said...

Thank you, Silver, for reinforcing several points I tried to make here at Western Hero at AOW's and at FreeThinke's Blog,

This is one conservative who does NOT always want to see the law enforced, especially when it's unjust, inhumane, moronic and impracticable.

I get sick of repeating myself, but my viewpoint on this is unlikely to change.

Once more unto the breach ...

I don't like the way it was done anymore than you or any of the others do, SilverFiddle, but since it seems apparent that President Obama is not going to be challenged on this by that bunch of pusillanimous parasites we call "congress," it just seems better to take a positive view of the inevitability. 



IF in fact this "edict" really does make it impossible to deport young people who have lived their entire lives to all intents and purposes as Americans -- and it's probably a Big IF -- I have to think of it -- as I've said repeatedly -- as God working in one of His mysterious ways by something the thing that congress should have done many years ago.




Examine, please, the following scenario:




Suppose, for instance, you had a son who had met and married the girl of his choice, when they were both students in college, not knowing she was "illegal." 



Can you imagine what the effects would be, if some petty official acting on sudden orders to "purge" the country of illegals, decided the young woman must be deported back to -- let us say Ecuador -- a place she has never known with a radically different culture from the one she has grown up with? 



Imagine further, if you will, that this happily married young couple had already given you two grandchildren.



Do you REALLY think the US government should have the right -- or worse yet claim the DUTY -- to break this family up -- separate a mother from her children and a husband from his wife -- JUST for the sake of satisfying some asinine provision in the LAW?





You know we agree almost completely on Obama -- he is a thoroughly reprehensible character of highly dubious antecedents -- but this particular issue -- because of the hideous ramifications that go with it -- is much much larger than the throes of presidential politics -- or even violation of the Constitution.



I've already said it several times: Because our leaders have kept on "kicking the can down the road" for generation after generation, the damned thing has become so filled with stones, encrusted with burrs and infested with poisonous vermin it may not even be possible for us to pick it up and toss it in the trash any longer without suffering severe and deadly consequences.



I can't see any simple, clean-cut course of action to take on this one. It's a terrible mess -- but one of our own making. We did this to ourselves by ignoring the situation till it built to crisis proportions.

Too many good people would be badly hurt by enforcing the law as it exists now. THE LAW NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, and made RETROACTIVE to include all “illegals” who have in fact assimilated and are making positive contributions to our society -- not just their children.

Do you REALLY WANT to BE RESPONSIBLE for BREAKING UP FAMILIES and wreaking so much havoc? In my view that would be tantamount to a WAR CRIME -- the virtual equivalent of a modern TRAIL of TEARS.




~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

"I favor HUGE fines for employers with illegals on their employment rolls"
Current conservatives in office (you claim to support) do not support your idea, so it won't happen.

Compare Gotti to an illegal immigrant? This hyperbole is why we can't get anything done.

Lets seize Mexico to end our immigration problem? WOW, there's a Hitler like answer to a problem.

I'm waiting for the FDR like public works program, to build a 2000 mile long fence. promoted by Republicans of course. Nothing like a political philosophy switch, to get something done.

FreeThinke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

You sound like Rubio today; he says pretty much the same thing and I'll be curious to hear what kind of plans he might have.
The criteria's unwieldy because kids must have been here five years and there is no way to know that in most cases, unless coyotes kept records of when they snuck them in.
I believe Romney and Rubio are right when they suggest this edict might make it tougher than it was...it's rather like businesses who are frozen because they don't know how badly ObamaCare will hurt them so they can't hire, etc; these kids got this edict but it's not enough to know what their definite future is. tough times.

FreeThinke said...

Rob,

You make some very good points, but "seizing Mexico" I don't think is one of them.

You wouldn't want to antagonize the UN, would you?

Many Mexicans feel that "we" STOLE big hunks of their country from them already. That's what "La Raza" is all about. In truth a good argument could be made on their behalf, but I doubt if we would ever deed back California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texasto Mexico. They could never afford to pay us just compensation for all the development we placed there in the past hundred-or-so years -- ever since the Gold Rush.

For good or for ill we live in a world where MIGHT really DOES make RIGHT. That has ALWAYS been the case.

I agree, however, that those "illegals" who've become well-established and are not here just to drop Anchor Babies and then become Wards of the State should be, just as you say, "grandfathered in."

We need to start DISCRIMINATING heavily based on whether or not those who come here in future are apt to make a positive contribution to American society.

I feel very sorry for the Lame the Halt, the Blind, the Mentally Retarded, the Insane and the Desperately Ill, but we DON'T want them to come HERE.

REPEAL the 1965 Immigration Act, and SEAL the BORDERS to FUTURE "Undesirables" of ALL kinds.

~ FreeThinke

Sergeant D Honored Veteran said...

And I just heard that White House (Meaning Obama) has exerted executive
privilege over Fast and Furious documents

A full-blown coverup? You can bet your sweet bippy it is!
Does anyone here remember when Woodward and Bernstein, whose claim to fame is the take down of Richard "Executive Privilege" Nixon and who recently said that there is too much digging around at the current White House? I wonder if they'll get off their pompous leftist butts and delve into the corruption of the Obama administration as much as they did decades ago.
This is Watergate deja vu, the only difference is that Nixon was MAN enough to resign! .
These Socialist SOB'S make me sick.

Rob said...

FT, as a Texas native who's barely more than spitting distance from the border, I suggest that many Mexicans might think that we'd done them a huge favor if we did take Mexico.

But if we're not gonna seize that beotch and carve her up into more United States, then we need to issue a warning - with a finite deadline - to Felipe Calderón that he either stop the migration of his citizens across our border or we will apply our full and unrestrained military might to do so. We've got the manpower and resources to put an end to illegal immigration from Mexico and it's high time we stop fiddling around and get that job done right.

But again, I suspect that our amigos down south would be more negatively impacted by a sealed border than they would by us overtaking the country altogether.

FreeThinke said...

An interesting observation, Rob.

It sounds very similar to the argument that the descendants of Negro slaves are much better off here than they would have been if their forbears had not been forced to leave Africa -- by other blacks. -- and live here as slaves

There's much logic in that, but it would never sit well with advocates of self-determination for all peoples.

This may seem far-fetched, but do you remember Citizen Kane? Kane's parents had literally sold him to a wealthy man when Kane was just a young child, presumably because the rich man would be able to give their little boy a much better future,

Well, the kid was heartbroken at being sent away with a stranger, and never got over his parents' rejection. Despite all his supposed advantages, he grew into "Charles Kane," a rich and powerful-but-desperately-unhappy man who became a domineering monster unloved and unlovable.

In one scene towards the end Kane's long-suffering wife, who finally walked out on him without getting so much as a penny of his great fortune, was told by one of Kane's unhappy associates, "You know, I could almost feel sorry for old Charlie."

"You think I don't?" was the wife's poignant reply.

Jesus put it another way way:

"What does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, and loses his soul [in the process]?"

It would do no one any good, if we were to "take" Mexico by force. We only like to think it would, because we believe we know that the way we do things is superior to the ways of others.

That all depends on your point of view, I'm afraid.

The best thing any of us could do we be to stop forcing others to do anything.

~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

Well, Silver, I have to give you cred for such a thoughtful take on such a complex issue.

As you point out, these simplistic notions that the left wants legalization so as to bolster their voter base, or that the right just universally hates brown people have no place in this debate. Just plain stupid.

I think most thoughtful, knowledgeable and intelligent people understand that we need serious, comprehensive rather sweeping reforms. But there are political realities.

First, take the Democrats. It is not true that the Democrats all want some total amnesty for all illegal immigration. You be hard-pressed to name even a few.

The progressive wing of the party, and progressives in general, certainly don't want anything like that. One progressive group is even running ads on TV right now attempting to debunk the claim that there are jobs Americans simply won't do, in particular in construction and the hotel business.

Mainstream, Blue Collar Dems are pretty hostile to any kind of amnesty, while White Collar Dems are realistic about what can or can'tr be done to mitigate and alleviate the related problems.

The GOP has a more intractable problem. To many, the popular GOP slogan of "enforcement first" seems arbitrary, hateful and simple-minded, but it's actually a very clever way for them to avoid the issue. Obama has done more "enforcement" than any president in generations, but it's never enough, and it can't be. So the "enforcement first" argument essentially stops any further or deeper debate on the subject.

There are good reasons for this strategy. First, business interests want the status quo. The agro biz, largely located in GOP districts and states, has a worker base that is 75% immigrant! 75%! And no one knows how many of them are here illegally. On top of that, the agro biz is heavily dependent on Free Trade arrangements with countries from which most of the illegal immigration emanates, and they certainly don't want any scrutiny as to any connection with the causes of illegal immigration.

On the other hand, the GOP voter base has changed quite a bit since Reagan's amnesty back in the 80's. Blue Collar Republican voters are mostly steadfastly nativist and anti-immigration in general, as are a comparable percentage of Democratic Blue Collar voters.

So the GOP is torn in half over the issue and would rather just avoid it. "Enforcement first" is the perfect hidy-hole.

Unfortunately, partisan politics stand in the way of any comprehensive reform for the near future.

JMJ

Ducky's here said...

Odd that when Bill Gates et. al. start whining about needing more high tech visas so they can import cheap labor we hear very little.
They get what they want.

But a Mexican corn farmer who has been driven out of farming by NAFTA and agricultural subsidies in America tries to jump the border and all hell breaks loose.

Well, they keep shipping in enough blow and they'll get their revenge.

Rob said...

FT, it -is- a bit different situation with Mexicans than it was Africans. The Africans weren't pouring into America on their own to find a better life.

At a bare minimum, we should enforce our borders. And once we've grandfathered in the ones who are here, we need to enforce a default language: English. I'll respect your right to celebrate your heritage by using your native tongue, but don't force me to support your "foreign" lingo when you opted to come to this English-speaking country.

(I'm perpetually floored that the DMV must offer forms in Spanish when the street signs and in-car gauges are exclusively English!)

FreeThinke said...

Rob, I don't disagree with a thing you said in your last post, but I wasn't equating the African presence with the Central American one. I was trying to make the point that forced transference of indigenous peoples by outside forces is never a good thing, even if the intentions in forcing new ways on other people are benevolent.

People just don't like to be dominated. PERIOD! And I don't blame them.

Your suggestion that we "annex" Mexico might seem like an intelligent idea on the surface, but it would be seen as just anther act of aggression, and would be bound to make more trouble in the long run than it could ever be worth.

Whatever good the slaves from Africa may have done in earlier times has been offset -- and vastly overwhelmed -- by the hideous legacy slavery has burdened us with in the past century. Slavery was our Achilles Heel, and it was pregnant with the seeds of our undoing from its inception.

Mexicans and others from South of the Border on the other hand are much more pleasant, much more helpful and much easier to deal with than most of the descendants of former slaves the majority of whom have been rendered utterly useless to society -- and to themselves -- by stupid, short-sighted, expedient policies set in motion by FDR, IKE and later LBJ.

The D'Rats would like to do the same thing to the good, hard-working, as-yet-unspoiled Mexicans and Guatemalans who come here -- NOT to get on the Dole-- but to do honest work for honest pay. And they will if we keep grinding this particular axe.

I've had quite a bit of experience with Hispanics, and have found them almost uniformly cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent, intelligent, attentive to duty and eager to do a good day's work for relatively low pay, and I say God bless them.

The lousy stinkin' Do-Gooders in our society will shriek and roar, and weep and wail, and stamp their well-shod feet reproving us for "exploiting" and "abusing" these poor, beleaguered victims of "Capital's insatiable greed."

Well, I beg your pardon, these so-called "victims" DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY. They are DAMNED GLAD and GRATEFUL to GET WORK at what-for- them is a DECENT WAGE.

American workers, most of whom have been spoiled rotten with hyper-inflated wages and obscene benefits packages procured through the thuggish tactics of unions, have no such attitude. Most of them want to do as little work as possible for the most money -- and time off -- they can screw out of their employers.


The "Illegal aliens" have an attitude much closer to that of the people who built this country in the first place -- the early settlers, the pioneers, the immigrants from Europe who came over in the post-Civil War period than most overfed, over-compensated, over-privileged, arrogantly self-serving Americans d today. Sorry. That's an ugly thing to say, but it happens to be the truth.

~ FreeThinke

Leticia said...

Toughen the immigration laws, is a great start, secure our borders, and arm our border agents to the hilt with ammo and weapons to scare them.

I would also like to see people who hire illegals to pay such high fines that they would go into debt, which would make them think twice before hiring an illegal.

The best incentive to keep them out is to stop them from receiving free government handouts and NOT allow their children to attend our schools, if they do, deport them all.

If they want to come here, they need to go through the proper channels.

FreeThinke said...

Tell me, Leticia, exactly how does the presence of these people, whom I feel compelled to defend, harm you or anyone you know?

Unless you are a unionized worker who has lost a job because you can't or won't compete with low wages paid to Hispanics, I don't see the problem.

If you've read my statements carefully, you'd see that I despise and deeply resent the tactics used by Democrats (mostly) to attract the WRONG KIND of people to come here -- i.e. pregnant women about to drop another Anchor Baby into our midst, and thugs, drug addicts, drug dealers, hoodlums and lazy bums all inclined to burden us taxpayers by getting on the DOLE and STAYING there indefinitely.

Most of THOSE people have been brought her -- or lured here 00 to swell the ranks of those certain to vote for Democrats.

All of that STINKS to HIGH HEAVEN, and I hate, bu that is far from the whole story.

I'm not ging to say it all again, but it might be a good idea to examine my reasoning for supporting illegal aliens who work hard, are grateful to have the work and who perform a great many necessary tasks that benefit all of us.

If my some act of magic you could et rid of all the illegals, I imagine you'd see prices of goods and services rise almost immediately to unprecedented levels.

We all need to be careful what we wish for and pray for. We might just get it, and THEN where would we be?

Please don't take this as an attack on you. I'm arguing for common sense and thoughtfulness, instead to adhering to formulaic, legalistic knee jerk responses.

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

@"the consequences the children suffer as a result of the parents' illegal behaviors'

DAMN! You hit that nail square on the head!

@"How is this different from what President Reagan did--you know, a conservative who respects the rule of law?"

As my Father used to say:

Fool me once, shame on you,

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Or are we simply to grant amnesty every twenty-five years?

@But a Mexican corn farmer who has been driven out of farming by NAFTA and agricultural subsidies in America tries to jump the border and all hell breaks loose.

Ducky, how can you be pro-auto manufacturer subsidies and then turn around and bitch about agricultural subsidies?

Sounds racist... you obviously have something against Germans, Koreans, and the Japanese! But Hispanics are okay.

Finntann said...

On a more serious note:

If we aren't going to enforce our laws, why do we have them?

The laws passed by congress represent the will of the people, it is not within executive authority to ignore them.

Here illegally... DEPORT!

That said, there is no reason why our immigration process cannot work as efficiently as it did in the past.

The reason people cross the border illegally is because it takes the bureacracy so long to process an application.

In 1900 it took 5 hours to process through Ellis Island. While that may be unreasonable today, 5 days wouldn't be, even five weeks would probably significantly reduce the problem.

The question is do you want them here after processing through a government station, getting fingerprinted, ran through interpol and their home country? Or do you want them sneaking across the border in the middle of the night?

Enforcement is only part of the problem, the application process is the other half.

Cheers!

Kid said...

Seal the borders.

Create a guest worker program. ID them, Fingerprint, facial recognition, DNA.
Any criminals don't get [back] in.

Stop pandering to these loser libtards, they don't deserve our patience. Cast them out, reject them, let them live like lepers within their own ranks until even they can't take the stench anymore.

Ok that last part wasn't exactly immigration focused but it would sure do some good !

Ducky's here said...

Ducky, how can you be pro-auto manufacturer subsidies and then turn around and bitch about agricultural subsidies?
-------------
Because I see value in maintaining that manufacturing base especially when it hasn't come at a high cost.

I do not see the same value in paying Arher-Daniels to pump more low nutrition fructose dogshit into the American diet.

Ducky's here said...

Stop pandering to the loser libtards.

-----
The loser libtards supported NAFTA and set this whole thing in high gear.

The loser libtards supported the great Saint Ronnie Raygun as he created a huge refugee stream by turning Central America into a killing field?

The libtards are hiring the cheap labor an not supporting unions?

Keep thinking Kid.

Kid said...

"Ducky, how can you be pro-auto manufacturer subsidies and then turn around and bitch about agricultural subsidies?
-------------
Because I see value in maintaining that manufacturing base especially when it hasn't come at a high cost.
"

Here's a rare comment to ya duck. The auto manufacturers don't do Manufacturing. They do Assembly. Everything comes from out of country. They open the crates and bolt the shit together.

Finntann said...

Because I see value in maintaining that manufacturing base especially when it hasn't come at a high cost.

I hope you enjoy eating your car.

Let me paraphrase you...

Because I see value in maintaining that voter base...

Your duplicitousness is obvious and you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either subsidies are a legitimate function of government, or they are not.

I believe the latter, farmer or fender maker, government ought not be supporting private enterprise.

FreeThinke said...

Finntann, since you are obviously a genius at finding and compiling data from presumably legitimate sources (that's a compliment, by the way, so please accept it as such), I wish you would write an article for us summarizing the history of government subsidies to private enterprise –– sometimes known pejoratively as "Corporate Welfare."

If Kurt doesn't want to publish such an article, I'd be more than glad to showcase it at my place.

I hope you will consider it.

Sincerely,

FreeThinke

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Conservatives cannot budge on this issue because whatever compromise we make with liberals on this, it's another step towards open borders.

We in Australia are paying handsomely for our stupidity in electing a bunch of scummy socialist bastards. The illegal immigrants are coming almost every 4th day by the shipload now.

For you folks in America, when illegals are sneaking across the border and spot a policeman, they run, hide, escape etc.

In Australia, when they come by boat, they are looking for our coast guard, they radio ahead telling our Navy where they are, please come and get us. I'm not kidding. Calling it a @#$%ing joke is too good.

Rob said...

Theo, in America the illegals sneak in and hide from police. And yet we're forced to adopt bilingual programs in schools, support bilingual employees who can't be bothered to learn to read English at work, and made to feel like snooty scum if we don't do everything possible to bend over backwards to accommodate the needs and rights of illegals.

Like Thinkie, I admire the work ethic of many of the illegals. They're certainly more motivated (in general) than these f*ing jackwagons that Alexandra Pelosi interviewed at the NYC Welfare Office.

But if you've opted to migrate to America, you should damned well learn and adopt the language, both oral and written.

Mostly, I think I'm ready to see the illegals already here grandfathered in as citizens just so they'll have to pay taxes too!

Silverfiddle said...

This is a stupid comment:

@ Ducky: The loser libtards supported the great Saint Ronnie Raygun as he created a huge refugee stream by turning Central America into a killing field?

What a moronic statement. We shoulda just let the communists take over like the liberal democrats wanted, huh?

All of those little brown people in Central America you leftists profess to care so much about are now breathing free and electing their own legislators and presidents.

That would not have been possible if people like you had your way, Ducky.

They used that power, fought for and won with "Ronnie Raygun's" help to reject Efrain Rios Montt in Guatemala, to vote back in communist pedophile Danny Ortega in Nicaragua, and to elect an FMLN candidate in El Salvador.

You are so wrong so often, I seriously question your sincerity.

Anonymous said...

The problem is in the willingness to do the politically unpopular.

Issues such as the benefit people are getting from hiring illegal workers, the backlash from the hispanic population that feel association with illegals and of course the moral issues of those countless individuals whom were or are minors and are there because of their parents.

The other side of the coin is the equally unpopular and expensive effort to actually enforce border control.

It ultimately comes down to:

1. allowing those that presently contribute to American society to remain, whilst
2. remove those that are not, and
3. have a strong vetting process of those that should not be there because they are criminal, etc, but most of all
4. seriously "enforce" very strict penalties on any American business or individual who employs or gives aid to an illegal (ie 2. and 3. above).

The trouble with the above is that it will cost money, it will break hearts and there will be cases shown on TV to make us all cry and the person who implements it will lose votes.

You need backbone as much as seriousness.

Damien Charles

Silverfiddle said...

Damien: Welcome! Long time no see...

Very well stated.

Finntann said...

@write an article for us summarizing the history of government subsidies to private enterprise

Don't ask for much, do you?

LOL

I won't make any promises other than to say I'll look into it.

Cheers!