Illegal Immigration/Invasion

[mrswdk]

Lame. You want to financially penalize anyone who is not an American citizen based on the assumption that they are tax-shirking, job-stealing welfare leechers (an interesting combination of things to simultaneously be) who are a detriment to the communities they live in, and you think this will make them more welcome.

Go ahead and provide some examples of other economies that treat immigrants in this way, and show how behaving in such a way has made their economy stronger. Until then, 0/10.

[PLAYER57832]

Lame. You want to financially penalize anyone who is not an American citizen based on the assumption that they are tax-shirking, job-stealing welfare leechers (an interesting combination of things to simultaneously be) who are a detriment to the communities they live in, and you think this will make them more welcome.

No, I want to tax the employers who hire them. Because they ARE straining resources in some areas... and because employers find it all too easy to hire someone who won't complain as much and who will work more cheaply. On the other side are skilled immigrants who may provide needed skills, but also are getting higher wages. In either case, having the employer pay a tax does make sense... and it will help ensure that ALL the kids in the community get good educations and the services they need.

What I did NOT specify is that this would not apply to refugees. Refugees...and most of the kids coming here are refugees, not economic migrants.

Nor am I saying this is the only possible idea. I welcome other suggestions, but our current system is just not tenable. I think the FIRST step is to decriminalize simply being here "illegally" and to instead put the emphasis on employment.

Go ahead and provide some examples of other economies that treat immigrants in this way, and show how behaving in such a way has made their economy stronger. Until then, 0/10.

Actually, most European countries expect non-citizens to pay for and provide their own insurance and elder care, since they don't pay into a lifetime of taxes.

Also, they limit legal migration heavily. The Swiss actually kicked out bunches of skilled, employed people a few decades ago.

[mrswdk]

So what if an employer in Texas hires someone who just moved in from New York? Does the employer still have to pay his Outside Folk Tax, or is that newcomer's effect on the local economy smaller than when the newcomer is from another country?

Those European countries also make their own citizens pay more if they spend too much of their lives living and working outside the country and then return. That is not a penalty aimed at the employer for hiring an immigrant, nor a penalty aimed at the immigrant for simply being an immigrant.

[mrswdk]

As for your 'immigrants are vacuuming up our jobs and welfare' claptrap, just google 'immigrants add value' and see what you find.

[PLAYER57832]

So what if an employer in Texas hires someone who just moved in from New York? Does the employer still have to pay his Outside Folk Tax, or is that newcomer's effect on the local economy smaller than when the newcomer is from another country?

Of course not... Texas only pretends to be its own country. However, most states do require a specific period of residency before offering many social services. (typically armed service members and a few others are excepted).

I AM in favor of more uniform taxes, more uniform benefits across the nation, but that is a very different issue.

Those European countries also make their own citizens pay more if they spend too much of their lives living and working outside the country and then return. That is not a penalty aimed at the employer for hiring an immigrant, nor a penalty aimed at the immigrant for simply being an immigrant.

Actually, its a penalty aimed at the employee who has not paid all the taxes they might if they stayed a resident.

[Phatscotty]

How would you anti-immigration people feel if a bus load of children was forced to turn around from the US and go back through Mexico and then get waylaid by gangs and they were all horrible tortured and executed and thrown into a mass grave? These kids are trying to escape the cartel and gangs that are taking over their countries. It's a war and you do not realize it. These are not immigrants, but refugees. They deserve refugee status! You can stick your rattlesnake flag up your butt!

Refugees from gangs created by US gang members.

You keep saying that, so I'm calling you out. Please square your repeated phrase with the following

MS-13
Colima Cartel
Sinaloa Cartel
Sonora Cartel
Tijuana Cartel
Guadalajara Cartel
Gulf Cartel
Juárez Cartel

just to name a few. Just to be clear and so there is no squirming....how are these gangs created by US gang members, and which US gang members are you talking about?

#1You are mixing in Mexican Cartels with gangs in other south American countries. Most of this recent immigration, particularly all these unaccompanied kids, is not from Mexico.

#2 Here, an article that explains it reasonably:

I know you dislike NPR (where I probably first heard about this), but here is a quote from a National Geographic article:

But one aspect of the Central American violence that's feeding the border crisis has been largely overlooked: its roots in the gang culture of Los Angeles. Many of the gangs that are destabilizing much of Central America are American-born.

The history of Central American gang violence dates to the 1980s, when civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua sent thousands of people north, in search of refuge. Some of those immigrants found their way into gangs in Los Angeles that wound up seeding drug-related violence back home, often after their members were deported by the United States, analysts say.

Ummmm, that doesn't sound like an American gang. That sounds like, extremely loud and clear, it's the Salvadorians and Nicaraguans. Unless you are arguing an illegal immigrant who purposefully went North to set up the drug trade 'speaks as an American, for America, and the American way' Like those Nicaraguans and Salvadorians are the 'Americans who exploited Nicarauguans and Salvadorians'?

wut?

[Dukasaur]

But one aspect of the Central American violence that's feeding the border crisis has been largely overlooked: its roots in the gang culture of Los Angeles. Many of the gangs that are destabilizing much of Central America are American-born.

The history of Central American gang violence dates to the 1980s, when civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua sent thousands of people north, in search of refuge. Some of those immigrants found their way into gangs in Los Angeles that wound up seeding drug-related violence back home, often after their members were deported by the United States, analysts say.

Ummmm, that doesn't sound like an American gang. That sounds like, extremely loud and clear, it's the Salvadorians and Nicaraguans. Unless you are arguing an illegal immigrant who purposefully went North to set up the drug trade 'speaks as an American, for America, and the American way' Like those Nicaraguans and Salvadorians are the 'Americans who exploited Nicarauguans and Salvadorians'?

wut?

Sounds like you're not reading that correctly. It looks to me that the article is saying these people were not criminals before they came to Los Angeles.

The full details are not there, but reading between the lines I can see many plausible scenarios. For instance, ordinary villagers, probably growing corn and sorghum and not partaking in anything stronger than alcohol back home, flee the civil war and come to the U.S. They fully expect to do honest work to earn a living, but when they get here they find that in the U.S. corn and sorghum are harvested by machine, not by peasant labour. So, they're unemployed, they gravitate to the big cities where they are told all the work is, but they lack marketable skills and end up being scooped up as runners for gangs. Eventually they earn enough to send money back home, along with contacts amongst their relatives who can be recruited for gang work, etc., etc. Variations of this scenario play out often enough that we aren't surprised to find a new variation of it.

I don't think the U.S. is particularly to blame in this regard. Crime rates are often very high among refugees, even though the refugees come from law-abiding populations back home. It's a simple economic issue of the guest economy not being able to absorb large numbers of unskilled (or wrong-skilled, to be more precise) workers in a short period of time, and crime being basically the most promising economic activity available to them.

While it would definitely be wrong to single out the U.S., I think in general the host countries for refugees (including the U.S.) don't think clearly enough about how to solve the problem. And definitely it's wrong to do what you did above and try to blame the refugees for creating the problem. They are pawns in parallel games, political and criminal.

[mrswdk]

So what if an employer in Texas hires someone who just moved in from New York? Does the employer still have to pay his Outside Folk Tax, or is that newcomer's effect on the local economy smaller than when the newcomer is from another country?

Of course not... Texas only pretends to be its own country. However, most states do require a specific period of residency before offering many social services. (typically armed service members and a few others are excepted).

I AM in favor of more uniform taxes, more uniform benefits across the nation, but that is a very different issue.

Those European countries also make their own citizens pay more if they spend too much of their lives living and working outside the country and then return. That is not a penalty aimed at the employer for hiring an immigrant, nor a penalty aimed at the immigrant for simply being an immigrant.

Actually, its a penalty aimed at the employee who has not paid all the taxes they might if they stayed a resident.

So, basically:

1) You think that a person moving to your town from another country will impact negatively upon the economy of your town, but if they move there from elsewhere within the country then your town won't notice a thing.

2) You think employers should be penalized for employing foreigners and as your case study are using a bunch of European countries who have no such foreigner tax.

3) You still think that an immigrant who comes to your country and gets a job has a negative impact upon the economy.

[PLAYER57832]

As for your 'immigrants are vacuuming up our jobs and welfare' claptrap, just google 'immigrants add value' and see what you find.

It depends on the numbers and the skills of the immigrants, to a large extent. a lot of immigrants are positive, but our current policy basically favors those willing to subvert and ignore our laws. We have a a large number of Mexicans, in particular, out west who have an extraordinary sense of entitlement -- exceeding even the sense of entitlement of most young citizens (and their sense of entitlement is mostly undeserved as well!)


HOWEVER, that has little to do with the surge of recent immigrants, particularly all the unaccompanied minors. Those are true refugees, and refugees from violence that began here in the US.

[PLAYER57832]

So what if an employer in Texas hires someone who just moved in from New York? Does the employer still have to pay his Outside Folk Tax, or is that newcomer's effect on the local economy smaller than when the newcomer is from another country?

Of course not... Texas only pretends to be its own country. However, most states do require a specific period of residency before offering many social services. (typically armed service members and a few others are excepted).

I AM in favor of more uniform taxes, more uniform benefits across the nation, but that is a very different issue.

Those European countries also make their own citizens pay more if they spend too much of their lives living and working outside the country and then return. That is not a penalty aimed at the employer for hiring an immigrant, nor a penalty aimed at the immigrant for simply being an immigrant.

Actually, its a penalty aimed at the employee who has not paid all the taxes they might if they stayed a resident.

So, basically:
1) You think that a person moving to your town from another country will impact negatively upon the economy of your town, but if they move there from elsewhere within the country then your town won't notice a thing.

Not even close.

I feel that citizenship is important. It not only conveys rights, but also RESPONSIBILITIES. Our country was built on immigrants who came for a wide range of reasons and joined in the responsibilities of the country. The more recent wave of illegal, lagely Mexican immigrants IS different.
The current policy seperates families, doesn't allow immigrants to readily return home (which many seasonal agriculture workers used to do). IN the past, parents would come for a short time and go back and forth. The border crackdown makes it too difficult to cross, so people wind up staying here. They may intend to go back permanently, but it can take years.

2) You think employers should be penalized for employing foreigners and as your case study are using a bunch of European countries who have no such foreigner tax.

3) You still think that an immigrant who comes to your country and gets a job has a negative impact upon the economy.

[/quote]
You are taking everything I have said WAY out of context. I am brainstorming and basing what I say largely on what is really happening in the west, particularly California.

You disagree? Fine, but come up with BETTER solutions... and simply giving everyone who comes here citizenship rights won't work.

Unless people are actually willing to consider various ideas, the only voices heard will be the most extreme. Shut down even reasonable SUGGESTIONS of compromise and we are left with either full amnesty or "lock down the borders" NEITHER of those "options" is tenable.

[mrswdk]

I never said anyone should just be automatically given citizenship. I think illegal immigrants should always be deported, unless they are refugees seeming asylum.

I just think that taxing employers simply for hiring a foreigner would not produce any value, would serve as an incentive to exclude immigrants from participating in the economy and gives in to the unsubstantiated fear-mongering that lies at the root of almost all anti-immigration rhetoric.

[PLAYER57832]

How would you anti-immigration people feel if a bus load of children was forced to turn around from the US and go back through Mexico and then get waylaid by gangs and they were all horrible tortured and executed and thrown into a mass grave? These kids are trying to escape the cartel and gangs that are taking over their countries. It's a war and you do not realize it. These are not immigrants, but refugees. They deserve refugee status! You can stick your rattlesnake flag up your butt!

Refugees from gangs created by US gang members.

You keep saying that, so I'm calling you out. Please square your repeated phrase with the following

MS-13
Colima Cartel
Sinaloa Cartel
Sonora Cartel
Tijuana Cartel
Guadalajara Cartel
Gulf Cartel
Juárez Cartel

just to name a few. Just to be clear and so there is no squirming....how are these gangs created by US gang members, and which US gang members are you talking about?

#1You are mixing in Mexican Cartels with gangs in other south American countries. Most of this recent immigration, particularly all these unaccompanied kids, is not from Mexico.

#2 Here, an article that explains it reasonably:

I know you dislike NPR (where I probably first heard about this), but here is a quote from a National Geographic article:

But one aspect of the Central American violence that's feeding the border crisis has been largely overlooked: its roots in the gang culture of Los Angeles. Many of the gangs that are destabilizing much of Central America are American-born.

The history of Central American gang violence dates to the 1980s, when civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua sent thousands of people north, in search of refuge. Some of those immigrants found their way into gangs in Los Angeles that wound up seeding drug-related violence back home, often after their members were deported by the United States, analysts say.

Ummmm, that doesn't sound like an American gang. That sounds like, extremely loud and clear, it's the Salvadorians and Nicaraguans. Unless you are arguing an illegal immigrant who purposefully went North to set up the drug trade 'speaks as an American, for America, and the American way' Like those Nicaraguans and Salvadorians are the 'Americans who exploited Nicarauguans and Salvadorians'?

wut?

Here, I have highlighted the specific wording... but you could also try reading the whole article.
Some of those immigrants found their way into gangs in Los Angeles that wound up seeding drug-related violence back home, often after their members were deported by the United States, analysts say.

ALSO, the gangs you mentioned are MEXICAN gangs, but most of the recent wave of immigrants are from OTHER south American countries. The kids, in particular are heavily from El Salvador and Guatemala

How about trying again, this time without thinking you already know what you are going to read.

[PLAYER57832]

I never said anyone should just be automatically given citizenship. I think illegal immigrants should always be deported, unless they are refugees seeming asylum.

I just think that taxing employers simply for hiring a foreigner would not produce any value, would serve as an incentive to exclude immigrants from participating in the economy and gives in to the unsubstantiated fear-mongering that lies at the root of almost all anti-immigration rhetoric.

Well, you want to deport anyone not meeting current specific arbitrary criteria.

I would eliminate that distinction, basically letting anyone stay who can support themselves.. either through a job or because family is willing to support them (this would especially apply to children and elderly parents). The only ones I would exclude are those who cannot support themselves, though I would absolutely make some exceptions, such as student exchanges, refugees, victims of crimes, etc.

The limit, then would be from employers. For the above to work, though, we would have to have some distinction between citizens and non-citizens in hiring. There ALREADY are supposed to be limits in hiring non-citizens. Employers are already supposed to give preference to legal citizens. Except, that is hard to track. Even determining who is able to work legally is an issue. I think putting it into a tax basis would make it easier to administer, accomplish something real (the taxes would legitimately pay for services), and generally create a more fair system.

The other basic alternative is to just crack down on employers.. fine them, put them in jail. I think that tends to encourage criminality. Ironically, it gives those willing to skirt the law an advantage, because the employees are subject to deportation so readily and the employer faces few consequences. I say let the people stay, just make sure they are not derelicts or criminals (noncitizens would even be eligible for standard unemployment insurance, though generally not welfare, unless refugees). I also think we need to house the real criminal aliens, returning them to countries that have the ability to deal with the criminals, but not the ones that don't. It really doesn't matter if the crime is terrorism or drugs.. the impact is equally horrific when criminals are just let go.

Anyway, this IS basically "brainstorming." I am certainly not saying the idea is perfect, but I have not heard anything better.

[mrswdk]

i.e. you would not make any distinction, simply blanket penalize anyone who is not an American citizen. If you make employers pay an extra tax for hiring foreigners, most simply won't. Your plans would just serve to raise barriers to foreign nationals finding work.

If your rationale is that immigrants should pay extra taxes due to not having an extended history of paying tax in that country, then should young (American) adults also pay more? They, like relatively new arrivals, also don't have a long history of paying tax to the US government.

[Phatscotty]

But one aspect of the Central American violence that's feeding the border crisis has been largely overlooked: its roots in the gang culture of Los Angeles. Many of the gangs that are destabilizing much of Central America are American-born.

The history of Central American gang violence dates to the 1980s, when civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua sent thousands of people north, in search of refuge. Some of those immigrants found their way into gangs in Los Angeles that wound up seeding drug-related violence back home, often after their members were deported by the United States, analysts say.

Ummmm, that doesn't sound like an American gang. That sounds like, extremely loud and clear, it's the Salvadorians and Nicaraguans. Unless you are arguing an illegal immigrant who purposefully went North to set up the drug trade 'speaks as an American, for America, and the American way' Like those Nicaraguans and Salvadorians are the 'Americans who exploited Nicarauguans and Salvadorians'?

wut?

Sounds like you're not reading that correctly. It looks to me that the article is saying these people were not criminals before they came to Los Angeles.

Based on what? And are we really gonna ignore the the obvious agenda of the article, which is obviously America is to blame, the Nicaraguan's and Salvadorian's setting up the drug networks are innocent and just want to make a living? And are we gonna pretend that a person with no skills that cannot speak the language has many options in the first place? We'd also have to pretend that these people setting up the drug trade came here to work, for some reason that didn't work, but then they remember they know somebody in the drug trade and maybe they can create their own job?

I'd say the drug cartels know just fine how to take over a market or a region and expand their territory and set up network and tunnels and pay off government officials, and they are past the point of getting their own people elected to power to make the rules that favor them.

And right now that rule seems to be send their people up to America, and those people will send America's economic benefits back to their home counrty's economy. I'm sure you are aware that a dollar spent in your own community with local business is far more valuable than a dollar sent to another state, not to mention another continent.

[PLAYER57832]

But one aspect of the Central American violence that's feeding the border crisis has been largely overlooked: its roots in the gang culture of Los Angeles. Many of the gangs that are destabilizing much of Central America are American-born.

The history of Central American gang violence dates to the 1980s, when civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua sent thousands of people north, in search of refuge. Some of those immigrants found their way into gangs in Los Angeles that wound up seeding drug-related violence back home, often after their members were deported by the United States, analysts say.

Ummmm, that doesn't sound like an American gang. That sounds like, extremely loud and clear, it's the Salvadorians and Nicaraguans. Unless you are arguing an illegal immigrant who purposefully went North to set up the drug trade 'speaks as an American, for America, and the American way' Like those Nicaraguans and Salvadorians are the 'Americans who exploited Nicarauguans and Salvadorians'?

wut?

Sounds like you're not reading that correctly. It looks to me that the article is saying these people were not criminals before they came to Los Angeles.

Based on what? And are we really gonna ignore the the obvious agenda of the article, which is obviously America is to blame, the Nicaraguan's and Salvadorian's setting up the drug networks are innocent and just want to make a living?

This is not what the article said at all, nor is it what I said.


You have gone from demanding I provide proof that the violence people, particularly kids, are now fleeing originated here by demanding I show connections to MEXICAN gangs, ignoring that I was not even talking about Mexico. You did not bother reading the article (STILL have not), but instantly claimed I was wrong... though I was not, and still refused to admit you did not even have the correct country!

Now you are twisting what Dukasar has said as well.

How about actually showing you even understand the issue before voicing your opinions.

No one is saying the criminals we deported were innocent. MY point is that we have all these supposed terrorists in Guantanamo, never truly convicted (though I am NOT saying they are all nice wonderful innocent people, either), but we cannot send them anywhere because they might rejoin Al Qaeda or some such. Here we sent folks probably worse to do as they will, causing this new rush of kids to risk their lives to escape.

And are we gonna pretend that a person with no skills that cannot speak the language has many options in the first place? We'd also have to pretend that these people setting up the drug trade came here to work, for some reason that didn't work, but then they remember they know somebody in the drug trade and maybe they can create their own job?

Uh... it is not the adults who went into crime. It is the kids, generally educated here in the US.

I'd say the drug cartels know just fine how to take over a market or a region and expand their territory and set up network and tunnels and pay off government officials, and they are past the point of getting their own people elected to power to make the rules that favor them.

I'd say you are
A. STILL talking about Mexico, though that was not the country in question.
B. distorting what has happened.
C. so intent on YOUR personal agenda that you cannot even speak honestly or read without distortion.

And right now that rule seems to be send their people up to America, and those people will send America's economic benefits back to their home counrty's economy. I'm sure you are aware that a dollar spent in your own community with local business is far more valuable than a dollar sent to another state, not to mention another continent.

And illegal aliens here do buy stuff.. which is part of why the REAL push to keep them here was from big business.

[PLAYER57832]

But one aspect of the Central American violence that's feeding the border crisis has been largely overlooked: its roots in the gang culture of Los Angeles. Many of the gangs that are destabilizing much of Central America are American-born.

The history of Central American gang violence dates to the 1980s, when civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua sent thousands of people north, in search of refuge. Some of those immigrants found their way into gangs in Los Angeles that wound up seeding drug-related violence back home, often after their members were deported by the United States, analysts say.

Ummmm, that doesn't sound like an American gang. That sounds like, extremely loud and clear, it's the Salvadorians and Nicaraguans. Unless you are arguing an illegal immigrant who purposefully went North to set up the drug trade 'speaks as an American, for America, and the American way' Like those Nicaraguans and Salvadorians are the 'Americans who exploited Nicarauguans and Salvadorians'?

wut?

The full details are not there, .

The full details are in the article I cited, though not just in the quote posted.

Its really a mixture, but no.. most of what you said is not correct. These were not farm workers who could not get employment.

Traditionally, Mexican migrants have worked in the fields and then gone home in the off seasons. Often they would just take the bus back. Then, in the 80's the influx shifted to El Salvador and other countries. Folks from El Salvador and the like could not just go home. Home was not a great place to be, and the border was tightening besides. They found work, particularly in building trades, janitorial services and fast foods. Some brought families, some had families.

Though employed, living in LA is tough and expensive. Some kids did well and even had movies made about them. Others, though joined gangs and learned to be effective criminals. US policy became to send these criminals "back home" -- no matter whether the country they were going to could effectively control them or not, no matter whether they left their home countries as kids and became criminals here. These trained criminals joined up with residual rebels, and as I understand it, created their own gangs as well. The weak government has little power to do much.

[PLAYER57832]

i.e. you would not make any distinction, simply blanket penalize anyone who is not an American citizen. If you make employers pay an extra tax for hiring foreigners, most simply won't.

They would if they need them. And, many do.

Your plans would just serve to raise barriers to foreign nationals finding work.

Barriers, yes, but not insurmountable ones. There SHOULD be some barriers to hiring non-citizens. If not, citizenship has little value. Citizenship needs to have some value because non-citizens can always just leave.

AND... I think saying "you may hire this non-citizen, but you have to pay extra to do it" is less onerous than saying "you cannot hire a non-citizen unless you can prove there is no qualified citizen to fill the position. That is supposed to be the law now, with few exceptions.

If your rationale is that immigrants should pay extra taxes due to not having an extended history of paying tax in that country, then should young (American) adults also pay more? They, like relatively new arrivals, also don't have a long history of paying tax to the US government.

My goal is to have more sensible limits to immigration. Since economics is a major driver and a major impact, both, I think its reasonable to look toward economic solutions, rather than seeing it as just a criminality issue. Right now, it is seen as a criminality issue.

(Note.. for the "peanut gallery", that I say I want it seen in terms of economics does NOT mean that I think we should ignore criminals. It means that merely being here should not, itself, be a crime. Let law enforcement deal with the criminals, not people who just want to work here)

The ultimate reason to show preference to citizens is not that they have not been here long (you are confusing my answer regarding Texas and Europe with why I said citizens should be given preference). Citizens, by definition, belong to a country and share not just its benefits, but its obligations. Non-citizens do not share most of those obligations. (Paying taxes is one point they do share.)

People coming here intending to become citizens is another issue. That needs to be a process with different criteria than just coming to work. That said, I have no problem with saying that people wanting to join our country should first do pay this additional tax, unless they are refugees or, say have done a great service to the US (I think its abysmal that many who helped us in the Iraq war as translators and in other ways were just abandoned. They should get protection like the Hmong people did)

[mrswdk]

Again, if you think that indiscriminately taxing all immigrants will not have a negative impact then you are mistaken. There are plenty of places in the world who are willing to pay talented people handsomely. Those people are not do desperate to travel to America that they will put up with being vilified and penalized just for being there.

[mrswdk]

Again, if you think that indiscriminately taxing all immigrants will not have a negative impact then you are mistaken. There are plenty of places in the world who are willing to pay talented people handsomely. Those people are not do desperate to travel to America that they will put up with being vilified and penalized just for being there.

[Metsfanmax]

Shit, if I was them and I heard Obama repeat what he has been repeating over the last 6 months, I would make a B line for the border too. Unfortunately they are starting to stack up againt each other. I'm sure many of you have seen pictures of them all crammed together in a way too small cell. So where are the thousand that show up tomorrow going to go? how about the thousand the next day? what about everyday next week? next month?

If you believe that the way people get their rights is to fight for them, why don't you support people who take a harrowing trip across the border, leaving their homes and families and risking their lives, to obtain greater economic opportunity in a land that prides itself on offering just that?

[PLAYER57832]

Again, if you think that indiscriminately taxing all immigrants will not have a negative impact then you are mistaken. There are plenty of places in the world who are willing to pay talented people handsomely. Those people are not do desperate to travel to America that they will put up with being vilified and penalized just for being there.

Actually, in many cases they will.

If not, then so what? America is open to people who want to come, but we don't have to beg and plead people to come here. If there are no employment protections for citizens, then where are THEY to go?

In all your talk of the harm taxing immigrants does, you ignore 2 things... first, your restrictions regarding "legality" are more onerous and frankly often nonsensical than letting employ-ability/ability to support themselves somehow decide if someone can stay or not. Second, what happens when citizens lose out on jobs.. which they absolutely do. Citizens are the ones here to stay. Immigrants intending to become citizens will move into that process, in time.

Oh, one other thing... find one country that doesn't place some kind of limits on hiring foreigners. There is a reason for those restrictions.

[PLAYER57832]

Shit, if I was them and I heard Obama repeat what he has been repeating over the last 6 months, I would make a B line for the border too. Unfortunately they are starting to stack up againt each other. I'm sure many of you have seen pictures of them all crammed together in a way too small cell. So where are the thousand that show up tomorrow going to go? how about the thousand the next day? what about everyday next week? next month?

The irony behind your words is that Obama has deported FAR MORE people than Bush or any of the recent Republicans (not going back past Reagan}

[Phatscotty]

Shit, if I was them and I heard Obama repeat what he has been repeating over the last 6 months, I would make a B line for the border too. Unfortunately they are starting to stack up againt each other. I'm sure many of you have seen pictures of them all crammed together in a way too small cell. So where are the thousand that show up tomorrow going to go? how about the thousand the next day? what about everyday next week? next month?

The irony behind your words is that Obama has deported FAR MORE people than Bush or any of the recent Republicans (not going back past Reagan}

That means nothing. Everyone knows the Bush's pander to illegals and get Hispanic support. And your post has nothing to do with the current problem or any of the questions I asked. All that does is cover Obama's butt by somehow locking me in the box of Bush supporters, which I was not.

Besides, what does the amount Obama deported count for anyways when Obama is on the verge of giving amnesty to 5 million? Obama is doing it unilaterally, going around Congress of course, and a Congress that directly reflects the views of the American people on this issue, as 77% of Americans want them returned to their home. That will put Obama's deportation record in the red by millions. Not trying to make a point of this, just in counter to you.

[Phatscotty]

Here's the problem that illegal immigrants has on our job market (Player I would love a response from you on this if you would be so kind as to)

The idea in the job industry is that if people are not willing to work for a wage that is too low, the providers of those jobs are going to have to do it themselves. When wages are rejected in a free market, that means the companies need up pay more in order to get employees to do the job. Follow so far? So, there are many crap jobs that American's don't seem to want to do AT THE CURRENT WAGE. If the wages of those crappy jobs were to rise based on supply/demand forces, I guarantee you American would in fact take those jobs. Enter the illegal aliens. They will take the job at minimum wage, cancelling out the free market forces of Americans concerning wages.

THAT'S one of the ways wages are kept artificially low.

Agree?