But the government IS the people isn't it? As Lincoln eloquently put it- "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
My "list" (like Don's) consists of just two simple solutions- 1- Muslim immigration ban. 2- The Wall. It's not rocket science.. As for the Wall, how about it Pedro? "We don't need no steenkin wall!"
The real answer, you won't reveal: Common sense? Let me see... In 1953 Congress began sounding like Bill Clinton. So they mulled over the plan called "Operation Wet back" and deported every undocumented foreigner they could find. Within five years the unemployment rate DOUBLED! So, I'm supposed to believe the kind of "common sense" you spew when it's failed before??? By contrast, in 1986 the unemployment rate was at 7.6 percent. Between 1986 and 2001 we had open borders, seven amnesties to allow undocumented foreigners to seek citizenship and the unemployment rate fell to 3.8 percent and then rose only due to the events of 9 / 11 (precipitated by those "legal" variety of immigrants.) It's obvious you don't understand the principles of your own country's economics.
There is no correlation between illegals and unemployment other than the rate being high. I have no problem with folks coming to the US to work but I do have a problem when they have to sneak in and live in the shadows to do so. I guess you have no problem with people being exploited.
Our forefathers wanted them. It is part of our destiny. And there is something interesting to note here. Ever since biblical times when the people worshipped the Golden Calf (Exodus chapt. 32) history records that the masses have always been wrong. Our forefathers believed that America was the New Jerusalem of the Bible. From the earliest sermons preached in our nation's governing bodies all the way through Ronald Reagan, they referred to this as nation as the shining city on a hill. They believed it to be the city without walls (Zechariah 2:4) and our form of government was built around that precept. Although America only allowed whites to become citizens, people poured in to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. The point being is that you don't fix the cultural problems of America by destroying your destiny and doing an act that is common among failing nations. The people wanting militarized borders don't realize that this was started by Democrats and the public relations advertising today is being financed by the Council on Foreign Relations. Again, the masses are proving to be wrong. In this case, those making false allegations against me have not commented on my solutions and they are doing so for good reason. They want to win via a popularity contest, NOT on the merits of their case... which, as they know is very weak unless you want a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT / NEW WORLD ORDER / POLICE STATE.
If you let them in at the check points as opposed to supporting Ted Kennedy's quota program, they would come in properly. The statute is proper, not legal. If you would read the thread you would understand WHY you have it wrong.
The Bible says do NOT remove boundary stones. Nobody wants open borders or one world government. Its ridiculous.
The 9 / 11 hijackers were checked. How did that work out for you? Seddique Mir Mateen was checked out real good. How did that work out for you? Did you know that all the terrorist attacks were successfully completed by that variety of "legal" immigrants? Are you so ignorant that you think if a country wanted to send a criminal or a terrorist that they would level about who or what that individual is? If you had any of that common sense you crow about, you would have read the thread, your arguments have been debunked.
It also talks about loving your neighbor, not trying to kill them for accepting an opportunity willingly offered. You don't have a case. Read the thread. Nobody is moving the borders - except people like you...
Part of winning any political battle is knowing what your enemies are going to do before the fight begins. So, first off, I want you to remember something: the political pendulum swings back and forth and one day the liberals will be in control once again. Given that, you have to remember that we limit the number of people that can travel through America and we never focus on the million new citizens we naturalize each year. As if that isn't enough, in order to sell any border wall, the Democrats (actually the American people) are going to demand a path to citizenship for those already here. How many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants will then choose citizenship? During the seven amnesty periods they were sure they could still come and go without too much trouble. Now, you're creating an enemy AND an enemy that can do substantial harm to you. In the last election you lost at the polls. More people voted for Hitlery than for Trump. Trump got more electoral votes. That is why the Ds want to move toward democratic voting. Anyway, you cannot make the deal you will have to settle for and think a wall will protect you. Gain a wall, lose the country. What do we do? Instead of a wall, you incentivize employers to hire Americans. How do you do that? You kick the foundations out from under the left and leave them with nothing to complain about and then fix the problem. Here is how it's done: 1) Abolish any law on the books that does not "allow" people to come in as guests. Allow employers to hire whomever they want (no more quotas for anyone - white, black, man, woman, undocumented, documented, gay, straight, NOBODY gets preferential treatment.) The employer is in full control 2) Current tax rates for business are about 39 percent. Leave it in place and offer these high end incentives: A) Give a tax incentive to employers to take Americans off the welfare dole, unemployment line and / or provide opportunities for the handicapped B) Give a special tax break for employers that hire an all American work-force C) Give another tax incentive for the employer to bring jobs back to the United States D) Provide a final tax break for employers that pay 15 percent or more above poverty level as their entry level wage (i.e. if the minimum wage is $8 a company would have to start employees at $9.20 to qualify) Employers can then either pay Americans decent wages and very low taxes or have el cheapo labor. If the employer is in business to expand profits, he'll take the obvious path 3) Legalize pot. This is inevitable. Then allow the drugs to come across the border legally. Mexico taxes drugs as they leave Mexico and we tax it coming in. We make a deal with Mexico to provide border patrol agents, doubling the number of agents on the border at no cost to the United States 4) Reactivate citizen militias and allow them to protect private property at the owners behest. Pass laws that allow people to use deadly force, if necessary to prevent trespassing 5) Begin PROJECT SECOND CHANCE? What is Project Second Chance? Well, it's a little prison reform idea I have that would require prisoners to work on their rehabilitation. On the day that people go into prison, there would be no tv, radio, coffee, cigarettes, sodas, candy, ice cream or other non-essential luxuries. You would even take tattoos off prisoners and not allow any more during their incarceration. Then you allow the prisoner to determine their sentence. While in prison, a prisoner can cut a quarter of their sentence off by getting a GED. If they have an education AND transferable job skills, they would earn this time off by volunteering to teach classes in prison. In addition there would be a required set of classes that teach balancing a checkbook, planning a budget, job hunting and interviewing skills, housekeeping and interpersonal skills. Classes could also be offered in transferable skill sets, taught by volunteers and prisoners working to reduce their sentences. A prisoner with an eight year sentence could leave in two years with a GED, some job skills and life skills that can keep them out of prison. I have a lot more to this program, but you get the idea 6) Eliminate background checks involving witch hunts. An employer that looks after children has a legitimate reason to conduct a background check; operating a forklift in a warehouse, not so much. We have to put Americans to work, not dismantle the Fourth Amendment 7) REPEAL National ID / REAL ID Act and E-Verify which will allow us to REPEAL the income tax and the 16th Amendment 9) Abolish the federal Dept. of Education and even if takes a constitutional amendment; a free education must be limited to citizens only There it is. Problem solved. Move forward. Small edit - Spend the same money you wanted to waste hounding the foreigners and put it toward helping those on low incomes and those without health coverage. Reposted for those with limited IQs that answer a matter before they hear it. See Proverbs 18 : 13
Your choices are too limited. Reality offers many intermediate choices that are better than those stated. Yes, we need to control our borders, but not with a physical wall. An electronic wall would be far more efficient and cost less. Truth is, illegal immigration across our Mexican border is already down to almost nothing. Spending billions on a wall now would be a waste of money and an insult to our open culture. Some effort to deport illegals, especially those with some form of criminal record, is certainly warranted, but if children born in America are involved, then they and their parents should be allowed to remain. Also, children brought here while very young, who've never lived anywhere else (Dreamers) should not be forced to return to a country with which they are totally unfamiliar. America should also be considerate of immigrants who are escaping war or violence and face possible death if returned. These aren't immigrants, but refugees, and should be treated with special consideration. Legally, illegal immigrants who are not citizens, and don't have children born here, are subject to deportation, but the cost of finding them and deporting them can be more than the effort is worth. It's fine to do what's possible here, but seems a waste to spend billions to deport a few hundred thousand illegals. Better to upgrade the border security electronically and prevent additional illegal crossings in the future.
Choices are too limited??? My plan acknowledges the Rights of all. Create a legal "in" for everybody that can find a job in the new proposed marketplace and you don't need all that waste for border security. You already have most of what you are proposing.
I think that's a reasonable suggestion, and would certainly be open to giving it a try. It's far better than the Trump-alt-right wall.
Thanks for the post. I don't know how many were paying attention, but Trump backed off his physical wall idea and went with the same, identical plan that Hillary Clinton, as a U.S. Senator, voted for with the “Secure Fence Act of 2006.” Let's all be honest here for a moment: The Democrats are not going to really support legislation that would prevent people from crossing the border. IF anyone believes otherwise, they really are not qualified to be IN this discussion. As bad as Democrats are, however, they are better strategists than the Republicans. They got the Republicans to pass the 16th Amendment and give us the income tax. Anyway... Democrats want the Hispanic voting bloc. The Republicans want the foreigner labor because it is beneficial for the country from a profit standpoint. So, both sides are going to give you the illusion something is being done when, in fact, nothing is being accomplished except to weaken the citizenry by taking away their Liberty. In any event, politicians will vote for legislation to appease you, knowing full well their "solutions" will not pass constitutional muster. Let me take a side road to explain: Trump promised to ban all Muslims and then goes with plans that the courts keep rejecting. He is closing all the doors and then tell you he did his best. B.S. There is only ONE way to keep the Muslims out... have Congress issue a Declaration of War. All of our representatives have to be accountable and the war includes all Muslim countries. Okay, back on point. Since we cannot keep the foreigners out, we do the next best thing. Make sure we get dibs on jobs; that they are prevented from getting any of the privileges / benefits of citizenship; that they will be taxed. It will be legal for employers to hire whomever they want, but less profitable to hire foreigners. AND employers should be rewarded for helping Americans with good jobs at decent wages. The fewer people living off Uncle Scam, the less money government needs. So, it should be reflected in lower taxes.
The primary - and in my opinion only - duty of the state is to protect the borders to ensure the saftey of its citizens. With this in background, a policy of "open borders" would be absolutely preposterous as that would mean that, literally, anyone can enter the country and this would make it very easy for malevolent people to enter and do as they please. To a certain degree, Sweden, UK, France etc applied a very generous "open borders"-policy for quite some time and we have all seen the direct consequences of that idiocy. I cannot see how anyone would support such a stupid policy.
Welcome to America then. We have basically had open borders since the first colonists hit our shores in 1620. You mistake open borders with unprotected borders. One example of our open borders happened in 2003. The U.S. committed all its forces to fight in Iraq. This included, but was not limited to National Guard units and virtually all police officers subject to recall in the military. NOBODY then, nobody thereafter nor before than ever invaded us from the southern border where everybody thinks we must have a militarized border. Stomping your feet and making such unfounded assertions won't ever change reality. Now, in order to be consistent, if only a militarized wall can define a border, then we will have to wall up all that land in places like Georgia, Florida, California... and any other state that buts up against the ocean. No more beaches for you people. Russian ships have been spotted as recently as this year just off our coast: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/14/russian-spy-ship-off-east-coast-us-officials-say.html And to be equal, we will have to construct a wall between the U.S. and Canada. We don't need a militarized wall... never have and probably never will. Now, you want to talk idiocy, it's the side you're on that specializes in that. Those people are so naive that they believe a background check will reveal who the terrorists are. Not only is that B.S., it presumes that a terrorist nation will tell you who is a real terrorist and who is legit. Let's forget that a LOT of things that make one a criminal in the U.S. is NO CRIME at all in many foreign countries. And let's not mention that, due to really silly a** laws in America, we can't eliminate terrorists anyway. Does the name Seddique Mir Mateen mean anything to you? If not, you need to hit the books. I got many examples just like him, proving without any doubt that background checks and that other horse manure of like kind don't work. When I was a kid we used to go back and forth to Mexico and Canada with nothing but our driver's license and a few dollars. There was no problem then, there is no real problem now.
As a liberal, I want to say several things in response to your post. First, I agree that an open border policy would lead to a total nightmare in America. I certainly don't support that. I also agree that having 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. is a gigantic failure of our border security system that absolutely needs to be fixed. It has been repeatedly shown by a variety of posters on this forum that the responsibility for that gigantic failure to secure our borders has happened over several decades and under several Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses--so the blame cannot be laid conveniently on any one party or ideology. Furthermore, fixing the problem should be focused on upgrading the proficiency of our border system through improved electronic surveillance and hiring more border guards. A physical wall is not only a waste of time and money (as demonstrated by the failures of the Wall of China and the Berlin Wall to do the same in past history), but building a wall to isolate a society ALWAYS has negative unforeseen consequences on that society over time, that none of us want to deal with. Also, as another posting in this thread by TheResister rightfully acknowledges, both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats have their own reasons for wanting some active, continuous illegal immigrants moving in and out of this country. Republicans want the cheap farm labor and Democrats want the Hispanic vote from those related to or friends with illegals. Instead of constantly focusing on our differences here, and fighting each other, it would be more sensible to accept these simple facts (which are neither so bad) and work together to form a new immigration policy that benefits both sides equally, resolves the conflicts we have toward immigrants generally, and does whats necessary to make our borders as secure as we need and expect. Yes, I'm advocating a new, comprehensive, fair to everyone, functional Immigration Law.
r I agree completely with the first six sentences of your post--a very good summary. But I'm mystified why you felt compelled to lash out senselessly at liberals like me in you last sentence. Does this indicate a personal bias toward liberals so strong it prevents agreement in any capacity?
First, I want to acknowledge reading several posts by TheResister, admiring the energy and focus he's brought to bear on the subjects, and finding much to agree with. However, as with any conversation between two or more people, there are areas of disagreement too. I'll italicize my commentary below. Maybe not; see commentary above. Thanks.
A LESSON IN ECONOMICS AND IMMIGRATION A CBS station in Sacramento headlines: “Trump threats, minimum wage, overtime hitting California farmers hard.” Put this one in the category of “inadvertently revealing.” Faced with an urgent shortage of workers, California farmers are desperate to be heard. “If we can’t change the way we’re doing business, we’re at risk,” said Brad Goehring, a fourth-generation wine grape grower in Lodi. The state has been struggling with this farm labor shortage issue for years, but it’s gotten to a point where farmers are fed-up. As harvesting season gets underway, many growers in need of workers fear they may lose their crops, and President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration orders appears to only make matters worse. President Trump’s only “crackdown”has been on illegal immigration, which is another way of saying that he is carrying out his constitutional duty to execute the laws. So apparently the growers in question have been using illegal immigrant labor, a fact the reporters never specifically acknowledge. Goehring is among the growing number of agricultural businessmen in California who have tried a number of strategies to lure workers. From putting ads in the paper to offering benefits–such as health insurance and 401(k)s, Goehring has even increased pay on certain jobs up to $22 an hour. So some California growers have gone to the extraordinary lengths of offering benefits, and even higher wages! The horror! Isn’t this exactly what we want? Economic growth causes employers to bid up the price of employees who help them to create value. Are liberals nostalgic for the days when poorly-paid workers were desperate for jobs and had no leverage? “Really nothing seems to work. When you raise your wages, the guy next door raises his—-just keeps going up,” he said. This is sometimes referred to as a competitive market. Keep bidding! President Trump opposes illegal immigration largely because it drags down the wages of American workers. (I do, too.) I doubt that these reporters understand that they have just proved Trump’s point. When “threats” lead to a decline in illegal immigration, wages go up. Who could have expected that? Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with the law of supply and demand. The San Joaquin Farm Bureau says California’s minimum wage going up to $15 an hour and regulations on farmworker overtime are making things even more difficult. “The cost for our growers to just simply put that product on your table, is going through the roof,” said executive director the San Joaquin Farm Bureau Bruce Blodgett. Blodgett adds, “The real frustration is they drive the costs up, the commodities we produce are being produced in other countries a lot cheaper than they’re produced here.” Increasing the minimum wage will always hurt businesses and increase unemployment, if the increase puts the minimum wage above what businesses are actually paying for entry-level labor. Whether that is true in the case of California farm workers is unclear; some, according to this same news report, are turning down $22 an hour. Something more fundamental seems to be going on: “People from rural Mexico are not going into farm look like they did before,” said UC Davis Professor of Agriculture J. Edward Taylor. Taylor says more than 90 percent of our hired farm workers come from Mexico, but we’re seeing 150,000 fewer farm workers each year. “Young people growing up in rural Mexico are getting more education that gives them a ticket to higher paying jobs that demand more skills and provide them with more stable employment than they would get in agriculture. This is a case in which what is good news for Mexico, is bad news for CA farm work,” said Taylor. In other words, it takes more than it formerly did to lure Mexicans to come to California, legally or illegally, to pick grapes. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Agricultural labor is, supposedly, among the jobs that Americans won’t do: Goehring says he tried to get Americans to do the work. “No one’s ever lasted through lunch on the first day. They just walk off the job and we don’t hear from them again. It tells us Americans simply don’t want the jobs,” he said. Whether Americans want the jobs depends on how much they are being paid. Americans will do anything if the pay is right. Quite a few of them will even practice law. The ultimate solution is technology that reduces the number of workers required to produce grapes and other commodities. This is, of course, a process that has been going on for a long time. In ancient times, 90% of the world’s population had to engage in agriculture in order to raise enough food to avoid starvation. That percentage has declined drastically, enabling the development of modern civilization. The trend will continue. Innovation is often driven–happily–by rising labor costs. Professor Taylor…adds that…the alternative is to find new ways to grow these crops with fewer workers, so it’s all about technology. Many growers in desperate need of workers are turning to machinery to get the job done like this leaf puller which replaces 25 crew members for a period of 6 weeks. *** Some farmers in California are now experimenting with other robotic replacements for farm workers to help pick crops that are traditionally only picked by hand. And Goehring says if this is not resolved soon, he may have to reluctantly replace his grape business with almonds because if all his estate was filled with nut trees, it can be managed by three employees. That could be a good decision. A reader who is not wholly in sympathy with California’s growers writes: If you are unable to be viable because you cannot economically operate under the resource constraints given in the economy, one of which is the native-born labor pool…tough luck. This means that higher value opportunities are available to the labor force. Your business, if this is the model, requiring an external increase in population to remain viable, doesn’t get to expand or, if entirely dependent on importation of cheap 3rd world labor, goes out of business. This isn’t the economic activity we’re looking for to provide GDP growth per capita for existing native-born Americans. If, like our correspondent, you went to Harvard Business School, that is the correct answer. But I might stake out a middle ground: much of the wine our family drinks comes from France, Italy, New Zealand and Australia. None of those countries relies on Mexican labor, yet somehow they have found a way to pick grapes. If paying the wages required to attract labor–or, alternatively, investing in technology that reduces the demand for labor–raises the price of American wine by $1 per bottle, I think we can all manage. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/a-lesson-in-economics-and-immigration.php
America is not and has never been a democracy. The Constitution provides: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican Form of Government..." Article 4 Section 4. I pray that we do not become a democracy in my lifetime. XploreR begins with errors and ends with errors. The left began the nutty wall idea (which I have consistently proven - IF YOU READ THE THREAD) and Bill Clinton was the earliest of the modern anti-immigrant lobbyists. XploreR wrote: "The last time employers were in full control we had decades of preferential treatment for white males only in the job market. EVERYONE else was left out. Wanna repeat history?" RESPONSE: Most businesses are not owned by white males today. They are the minority and, due to the anti-immigrant lobby have been effectively locked out of the job market. You have no case there. The proposals I put forth are race neutral and immigrant neutral. It preserves the Rights of everybody. BTW I'm proud of my forefathers who founded our Republic. "John Adams, our second president, wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” For a complete discussion on that, see this link: http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/articles/22
A wall of text with no point, no substance, an opinion where everything in the link is easily disputed AND has zero relevance to the subject. I will say this: IF ANYBODY out there believes that Donald Trump is for getting rid of undocumented immigrants because it helps the working class, they are deaf, dumb blind and stupid. That's not opinion, it's fact. EVERY move by Donald Trump is to support the original idea set forth by Bill Clinton. Trump even settled for the same, exact immigration plan that Hillary Clinton voted for back in 2006. ALL of Trump's hoopla was an opening negotiation to get where the Clintons were trying to get to and couldn't. Trump's empty promise to get rid of Muslims was the slimiest of his lies. He knew, beyond any reasonable doubt, that his bans by country would get shot down. One day he can swear at the fake news media, the people in the swamp, but all of you know (in your hearts and rational minds) that the only way to prevent Muslims from coming to the U.S. if Trump wanted a ban on Muslims, his strategies would be so calculated. And most of us with an IQ higher than our hat size realize the ONLY way Trump could keep that promise was to force Congress to make a formal Declaration of War against the Muslims. Anything less is pure hogwash and you know it.
