My problem with the illegal immigrant debate is this: there's really no debate. Key word here- illegal immigrant. All the marching and protesting is ignorant and pointless. It's against the law to be here in the manner they are here. End of story.

I agree somebody needs to get off their duff and work on getting our borders tightened up. I live in Texas, and every tenth person you meet can't speak English at all, and probably don't even have a comprehension of our legal system. It's a major problem, IMO. I think we can afford to lay off terrorism and what country to bomb next for a while and worry about our own border problems.

Most people know I am not a big fan of GW in most things, but I continue to be impressed with his handling of this issue.

Unlike most people, including most people in this thread, Bush realizes that this is a complicated issue, and simply declaring that "oe noez th3y are teh illegalzozrz" is not productive.

When a law is broken this routinely there is usually a problem with the law or the policy underlying the law.  Don't most Americans casually disregard the speed limit for this exact reason?

Fact of the matter is that the entire US immigration system is messed up.  Illegal aliens are the least of our problems - the system for LEGAL immigration/temporary work permits is completely useless and counterproductive.

Moreover, as Bush recognizes, it would be very very bad for the US economy if what is now illegal immigration stopped suddenly.  This is rather obvious to anybody in an agricultural setting.  If we were truly serious about stopping illegal immigration it would be a relatively easy to do so, but nobody wants to take the required steps, for political and economic reasons.

The minutemen are idiots - first off, they are xenophobically patrolling the wrong border, if they are concerned about terrorists.  Second, what they are primarily doing is keeping the illegal Mexicans IN the country, not keeping them out.

This is a very complicated issue, that has everything to do with economics, both domestic and global, and has nothing to do with walls.

Bush is making an honest go at it, and I laud him for that.

djrox wrote: I have a big probelm with illegal aliens. I do not have  a problem at all with the ones that enter the country legally though.

Thousands upon thousands of illegal aliens entered the country legally.

How do we know that the people sneeking in aren't members of terrorist organizations. We don't. Because of this Bush needs to set up more security on our borders.

I am not necessarily opposed to more border security, but keep in mind that all the 9/11 terrorists entered the country LEGALLY.  And if I were a terrorist, that's the way I would do it too.  Why bother sneaking when I can get a tourist visa?

I agree that it is bad to have a situation where laws are regularly broken.

But greater enforcement is not necessarily the correct answer - sometimes changing the law is the way to go.  Speeding, for instance - the speed limit is simply out of step with reality in many places.  Instead of forcing reality into the speed limit, we should change the speed limit to reflect reality.

Similarly with illegal immigration - there is (a) a great need for low-end labor in the US, and (b) a large labor pool looking for low-end jobs.  All the walls in the world will not stop the two from connecting.  Capitalism will overcome - it always does.

I favor greater border security for drug smuggling/gang activity/terrorism/whatever purposes, but we should be realistic there are as well.  But - separate issue.

Building a wall will not keep the illegal workers out, and we don't really want it to.

If we truly wanted to stop/slow illegal immigration from Mexico, there are two things we could do - (a) make those low-end jobs go away, or (b) make the labor pool less interested.

(a) could be accomplished by making the actual hiring of illegal aliens a serious crime.  Right now, if you hire an illegal alien, the alien gets deported and you can't be Secretary of Labor.  If hiring an illegal was a felony that got you 18 months in jail, we would see some change.  Of course, we would also need a national ID database to keep track, since many illegals have fake papers that allow employers to look the other way.  But this would quickly dry up the job availability, making it less attractive to come here.

(b) could be accomplished by helping the Mexican economy, Marshall-Plan style.  If things were better in Mexico, people would have less reason to come here.  This would also help with gang crime, drug concerns, and a bunch of other things.  Are we ready and willing to invest a couple of billion in Mexican infrastructure?

And, of course, it comes back to the central issue that the US agricultural industry is relying heavily on super-low-wage illegal seasonal workers.  Without that labor pool, their cost of business would increase drastically, and the entire industry could potentially face a serious collapse.  This, of course, plays in with minimum wage issues and benefits, and other general economic issues.

Fact is - illegal immigrants are an integral part of US society and economy.  To simply throw them out and cut them off now would be a complete disaster, regardless of how illegal their presence is.

PAINTBALL1 wrote: ... but what doesnt seem to make sense is putting them in prison. Our prisons are vastly over populated, and are costing us millions and probaly billions a year. And so we want to flood our prisons more? Doesnt make sense to me, maybe i need to do more research on his proposal.

I agree - that is a dumb idea.  And, of course, many of these people are poor enough that a year in prison with regular meals would be like a vacation.

This just shows that some people have no understanding of the underlying issues here.

Pump Scout wrote: Quick edit - there are a number of financial institutions who have brought out programs that specifically target the illegal immigrants for home loans. They get a far better interest rate than a legal American citizen. The qualification standards are far lower. I'm told by contacts in the mortgage industry that not only is this legal, but it's a great opportunity for lenders to open up a whole new market. Meanwhile, we have how many citizens who can't get houses of their own? It's crap, plain and simple. And in my eye, it's discrimination against people who happen to be born here, and live here legally.

This doesn't sound right - I would love to hear more details.  Mortgages are heavily regulated at the state and federal level, and the marketplace provides additional restrictions - most banks won't issue a mortgage to somebody without at least a greencard, legally here or not.  Rate discrimination is generally illegal, and it makes no sense in this context.

The only thing I can think of would be CRA mandates (community reinvestment act), which require a certain amount of loans made to low-income communities, but that has nothing to do with immigration status.  FHA loans/guaranties are also available, but again based on income not immigration status.

I am a tad skeptical about this without additional information.

ACORN - interestingly, in addition to the loan program, there is also an organization named ACORN that is protesting Wells Fargo's alleged predatory lending practices...   :)

But even ACORN loans, TMK, are not based on immigration status, but strictly income.  And, as far as I know, the rates are not spectacularly good (prime minus 1), although there is assistance with down payments and PMI - standard low-income stuff.  But then you're the mortgage banker, not me.

And, not to hijack this thread further, but you do in fact have to be legally in country to get an individual TID - not all TIDs allow you to work, but you still need to show documentation at the SS office to get one.  Of course, plenty of illegals have fake SS numbers, so that doesn't mean much.

Pump Scout wrote: I'm not in favor of just cutting off immigration from Mexico, I'm in favor of cutting it off entirely. Nobody comes in for a few years. I know it won't happen. I just don't think that it's helping our system to continually let in everyone who feels like showing up on our doorstep.

You're right - it won't happen, and for good reason.

If we stopped all entrants cold, here are some of the things that would happen:

1.  Our agricultural industry would die instantly.

2.  Our tourism industry would die instantly.

3.  Our computer/hi-tech industry would die instantly.

4.  Our universities would suffer severe damage.

5.  Our finance/banking industry would suffer severe, potentially fatal, damage.

6.  The NHL would suck even more, as would MLB.

7.  Our international diplomatic credibility would be equal to that of Iran.

And that's just what comes to mind immediately.  We must face reality - isolationism is not only impossible, it is a really bad idea.  It would destroy our society as we know it.

Clark Kent wrote: 6.  The NHL would suck even more,

....

Yeah...   While I have great sympathy for the plight of the poor of the world, I'm not sure I buy the idea that a country lacks the moral foundation for excluding others - or, conversely, that immigrants somehow have a "right" to be here.

Human history is all about excluding others - my stuff is "mine" primarily because you can't have it.

At the same time, I also don't accept that it is morally appropriate to sit on our pot o' gold and not share.  The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, IMO.

DBibeau855 wrote:   They can go through the proper channels just like anyone else. I just met a coptic christian from egypt. Hes goining the army to help him become a citizen. Where theres a will there is a way.

Not quite that easily - your Egyptian already had some legal immigration status.  The armed forces doesn't take any old foreigner.  Most would-be immigrants never even get to the point where they are eligible for military service, since (with some exception), you need a green card to be eligible.  Green cards are very, very difficult to get.

The truth of the matter is that the "proper channels" are woefully inadequate.  Only a small percentage of people that would like to enter have any chance of doing so legally, and even for those it is a risky, expensive, and time-consuming endeavour.

Why did you have to bring hockey into this Clark.

I dare say most of the players in the NCAA Frozen-Four [April 6th, 3pm and 6pm] are American born, with some exceptions. We dont import ALL of our players from Scandinavia and East Europe....Just most...

DBibeau855 wrote: Theres no reason that these people can follow the rules and put the time in and pay their dues and get sponsorships and others cant or dont want to "do it the hard way." Nothing really worth getting was ever easy.

Plenty of reason.

First, the student visa - this requires acceptance to a US school.  Your average migrant worker is never going to school.  Then, beyond acceptance, they have to pay for it, and foreigners usually out-of-state tuition, and are not eligible for US student loans, so unless they are from a rich country that has lots of support available, they need to bankroll it themselves.  Working on-campus is also very limited under these visas.

F-1 student visas are primarily for the smart and wealthy.  Most would-be immigrants are neither.

Then, assuming you manage to get through college, you now need a job pretty much immediately, or they have to leave.  How many Americans have jobs right out of college?  And the job has to be in their field of study - no burger-flipping.  AND the employer has to be willing to sponsor them for an H-1B temporary work visa (PITA for the employer).  AND, even if all that works, you have to hope that you get one of the very limited number of H-1B's allocated for that year.  If you don't get in under the low cap, you are sol and out of country.

H-1B's, of course, require a college degree or equivalent.  If you didn't go to school to begin with, this won't work.  Agricultural workers do not qualify for this visa at all.  And, of course, the the H-1B is only good for 3+3 years.

And I won't even get into the qualifications for green cards.  Painfully difficult, expensive, and time-consuming.

But those are mostly for professionals anyway - your average agriculture/landscaping/hotel worker is not eligible for ANY work-based green card category.  ZERO.  Outside of family or marriage, there is currently relalistically NO LEGAL WAY for your average Mexican border-hopper to legally gain a green card.  None.

It's not a matter of not trying hard enough - there simply is no path.

Pump Scout wrote: Son, if you're going to bring name-calling into this, you've voided your point. Besides which, I'm looking back into some of your past posts, and having a hard time finding any intelligence in any of them. Keep your names to yourself, please.

I obviously disagree with Pump Scout on immigration issues, but certainly agree 100% with this.

DBibeau855 wrote: Well then Clark, we need to work on that. But that doesnt make it ok to just cheat the system. Obviously something needs to be done. But we cant just open the flood gates.

I agree completely.

Bolt3 wrote: I stand with my statement of, your a moron, PumpScout. One a side note: I had just said you were a moron for thinking about that idea because it obviously didn't take much thought to come up with the  something that you did.

I had my finger poised on the guesting button, but decided to go with the written warning instead.

I understand a heated debate as much as the next guy, but there is a fine line between attacking a viewpoint and attacking a person.  You crossed that line and then reaffirmed your crossing.

Personal attacks and flaming ARE NOT ALLOWED.  It's a simple rule, really:  play nice.

Last warning, or it's on to Bolt4.

.Ryan wrote: I'm pretty torn on this. On one hand, the effects of free labor on our free market is pretty heavy. I think there should be legislation to limit, both, hiring illegals and outsourcing to other nations. I don't care if it sounds socialist, it only makes since.

At the risk of another mini-hijack, it doesn't "only make sense".  Limits on outsourcing are not only useless, but actually counterproductive - they make the problem worse.  The world has known this since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations.

From an economic perspective, tariffs and import/export restrictions (whether for goods or services) almost always have the opposite effect of what is intended.  There may be political benefits, but there are always tremendous economic costs.

Simpler put:  Trying to limit or prohibit outsourcing by law will ACCELLERATE outsourcing, and leave the US an impoverished nation while the rest of the world laughs.

/hijack.

First off, Bolt obviously doesn't care and seems to want to be guested. I think after that many times and because of his continued belligerance, he's definatly pushing IP ban territory.

I guess I actually agree with Bush here on this. We need these immigrants, but there has to better protection against criminals coming over the borders, and protection for the immigrants themselves.

Border security and the illegal immigration problem are seperate issues, there's a good reason so many of them want to come here, and good reasons to keep some people out. I'm all for a temporary work visa. We really need to overhaul INS so we can keep track of people we let in legally and get people who want them their greencards faster. The problem is that as it stands, we couldn't keep track of these people.

Illegal immigrants are often exploited at disgusting levels, and being able to keep track of them would help us protect them from things such as getting the crap beat out of them or being chained to machines all day. Plus, getting them legallized would have an added benifit, we could tax them.

I've worked with quite a few illegal immigrants at low-wage jobs. Most of them picked up english quickly enough, and worked harder than the rest of us native-born, usually overweight teenagers. They obviously wanted to be here bad enough to risk it. Most of them ended up getting better raises than we did. However, they al got busted because one of them got pulled over driving up here. No driver's license, insurance ect. That's a problem. these people are here and are not going away, we might as well make it not cost as much when they get in a car accident. Let the insurance companies pay for it.

The Republican party as a whole is totally shooting itself in the foot here. Hispanics are a strong voting bases for them, since they are usually for less restriction on business. These guys want to work hard for their money and have the prospect of the american dream, getting filthy rich. Illegals are also a huge untapped market, we should be selling them used cars and insurance, and taxing everything we can. Imagine, the republicans screwing themselves because they disagree with Bush. I swear that he's talking about this sort of stuff so the next republican candidate can distance himself from the administration, like gore in 2000.

Hades wrote: My safety from terrorists is not as important as the improved life of millions crossing the border to work. Also I dont see a problem with spending tax dollars on health care to people that need it, nor do I cry when a job goes to someone other than me.

How dare you be so self-less.  It's un-American.

DBib wrote: Over population.

Not really - we're not talking MORE people, just located differently.

Gabster08 wrote: you are taxed while illegals, prance around enjoying "the good life"

Right.

Becuase I would sure love to pick oranges down the road for $5 a day in the Florida sun, as long as it is tax free,

The Good Life.