|
|
 |
|
#61
06-28-2007, 01:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I am all about helping the poor, I am not all about helping criminals...whether they are poor or not. The "criminal aliens" are the cause of this problem, Somer. The argument is about illegal immigration. If there were no illegal immigrants, the debate would not occur. Illegal, being the key word here. 
|
|
#62
06-28-2007, 01:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I vote for a 10-15 yrs period of "isolationism" for the US! We can spend time fixing all the broke-down systems in our country, and the U.N can save the rest of the world!
|
|
#63
06-28-2007, 01:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Always be yourself...unless you suck!"
|
|
#64
06-28-2007, 01:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I completely disagee! The problem here is that you and I have a completely different world view...that's not gonna change, so we'll disagree!
__________________
"Always be yourself...unless you suck!"
|
|
#65
06-28-2007, 01:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#66
06-28-2007, 03:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Wow! I just read back through this thread as I had to deal with the horses, and while I was away, I think Somerfrost saw the point I was trying to make. And no, Brian, it's not ludicrous to compare history with current events. Human nature remains constant. So back to some of your questions Jim. There is no way that the Native Americans will be given back what they previously ahd taken from them, so that's agreed. Regarding the creation of a "decent life and employment", well, you might disagree with me, but others have come here for exactly those reasons. When the potatoes failed, the Irish came, Germans escaping harsh living conditions, Italians seeking better, Jews fearing for their lives...on and on. There are too many nationalities that come to mind to list them all, and they all brought something to this country. That's what makes this a GREAT country. I grew up on the Jersey side of the Hudson where I could look everyday at the beautiful Lady holding her welcoming torch outstreched to the world. We all are no worse for the promise she held, and still does, to those that wish to work hard and create a better life for themselves and their families. Ok, I agree that there should be a process for people that wish to enter this country. I have no debate on that. I wish for all to be "legal". Regarding the "open border", I really don't know the solution. Seriously, I think NAFTA did a lot to lower the standard of living for Mexicans and others that live to our south. Yet again, like any "human nature", if someone could look over "there" and see that life is a lot better than over "here", what choice would you make? Yes, I agree there should be control. No need to debate that. What do we do with the 12 million "illegals" that are already within the country? I think there should be a process wherein they can "earn" citizenship. I'll let the "statesmen" work those conditions out. One last point....if the fear is "terrorism", and this is just my humble opinion, I don't think it will come across the southern border. Major ports on the East coast are wide open, chemical plants, nuclear facilities, and transportation systems are within easy reach. Last I heard, less than 5% of imported containers were even inspected by customs at Port Newark. I haven't checked on updates within the past eight months, so don't hold that percentage as solid. Suffice to say, we've been lucky. Very lucky. I'm open to your ideas on what we should do.
|
|
#67
06-28-2007, 03:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
there is a fundamental difference between closing your border and controlling your border. No one is advocating closing the border and hiding from all the problems of the world. I'm just saying control the border now in order to minimize further problems, while you're dealing head-on with the problems that have been created. Why is it that the process of having having a safe secure border that prohibits anyone from just wandering over anytime they desire is equivalent to demonizing the poor? Far from demonizing the poor, what I really think we are doing is giving preferential treatment to the poor. The people that apply for work visa's, student visa's, etc, that reside in countries that require a flight to gain entrance to the US, basically the people who are playing by the rules and doing things legally, are generally more wealthy and educated and advantaged than those that are crossing over from the south. Its a generalization but I think its fairly accurate. These people that play by the rules have to go through ardous procedures and a lengthy wait in order to comply. Their cases are reviewed somewhat thoroughly and the facts about themselves and their purpose to come to the US is fully reviewed. On the other hand the ones that flaunt the rules and cross illegally, we look aside and wring our hands and say well there is nothing we can do. The ones that are here now who violated the law we have to protect and give rights to because they are poor. Its a double standard that is in FAVOR of the poor.
|
|
#68
06-28-2007, 03:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I don't disagree with you about protecting our borders as long as you understand the "terrorist argument" is a bunch of crap...as DTS pointed out, the Mexican border is probably not their entry point of choice, the only way to protect us from terrorism is maintaining an intelligence community capable of tracking folks and identifying threats....something we haven't done very well to date! We need to focus on the folks smuggling people into the country, often taking their life savings and subjecting them to cruel treatment. We need to work with other governments to address long-term issues. We need to remove the incentives for companies to knowingly employ "illegals". I have no problem with more border guards, use of hi-tech equipment etc but these folks will continue to come until the underlying issues are addressed. And....nothing in society favors the poor!
__________________
"Always be yourself...unless you suck!"
|
|
#69
06-28-2007, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ArlJim,
You said, "there is a fundamental difference between closing your border and controlling your border. No one is advocating closing the border and hiding from all the problems of the world. I'm just saying control the border now in order to minimize further problems, while you're dealing head-on with the problems that have been created". Ok...question. How do you suggest that the border be controlled? I ask this in a most respectful way.
|
|
#70
06-29-2007, 07:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't claim to have all the answers on this issue, but on the border control part of it I do have some ideas that I would immediately pursue if I were in charge of things. I don't think its real complicated. In my mind what is going on is not much different than an invasion from a foreign country, admittedly one that we have allowed, or even invited. In this age of terror though it is not acceptable to have such a loose grasp on the border Briefly: Basically we need to really increase our border control assets. I would increase the US border patrol personnel in the region significantly. I would augment that with National guard deployments. I would look at the entire southern border not just specific pathes. I would install high tech hardware, cameras, drones, listening devices, etc, aimed at the border. While doing this I would announce to Mexico that we will now be actively changing our posture and apprehending people. I would have a tough policy. like first offense, you are sent back. Second offense you're looking at some jail time. What I think would be ideal is a large US "super" consulate in northern Mexico, where people that want to enter the US for work can be processed and given some type of work visa. You want to eliminate the demand for illegal entry by expanding the legal channels. When I enter Brasil on business I am fingerprinted and a photo is taken. We need much more horsepower in terms of processing documents etc. We have now virtual gridlock in terms of passports. We also will need active domestic enforcement against employers who hire illegals. the idea is to have visibilty, so that we can get an accurate count, and also I might add to be able to protect the rights of these workers. they are invisble now and therefore I think candidates for abuse. These actions would stem the tide and channel the migration into legal path's. Remember though that the border control issue is not only about migrant workers, its about keeping out unsavory types, criminals, terrorists, drug trade, customs control etc. As Somer said the big majority are just people that want work in order to support their families and have a decent life, and therefore are not a threat. I agree with that but my only point is that we have to have control over the numbers of people coming in, AND we need to be able to exclude certain people. Left unchecked for too long, and an uncontrolled border is a recipe for ruin. those are my thoughts, but I know that with that said none of it is easy.
|
|
#71
06-29-2007, 07:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I fully agree that the smugglers are ones to target and eliminate. I'm also with you on the crackdown on employers who hire people through the back door. All of these things done in the dark are subject to abuse. And many things favor the poor, are you kidding? Just look at the tax code!No fairness there if you ask me.
|
|
#72
06-29-2007, 01:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is fascinating reading guys- again I am amazed that it takes a horse-racing board to get people on all sides of the political spectrum debating an issue together. Much as I love political blogs, people tend to keep to their own kind on them.
 I missed the beginning of the discussion on immigration, but in the last two pages, anyway, I notice no one discusses the economic incentive provided by businesses to illegal immigrants. They come because there is work here. It seems to me it would be much less expensive from a taxation standpoint to, rather than spend lots of money securing the border (which I doubt would work- we've got a reeeeaaaaalllllly big border and the cost of fully maintaining it, or, god forbid, building a wall would be astronomical), instead go after the companies and people that hire illegal immigrants. Fine the daylights out of them, put them in jail, do whatever it takes to make it too much of a financial or personal risk to hire illegal immigrants. Then the jobs available to illegal immigrants will dry up, and so will the illegal immigration. The consequences, of course, is that we'll be paying $10.00 for a pint of strawberries, and a lot more for a pound of beef (I have no idea what beef costs these days since I don't buy it) since the advantage to businesses of illegal immigrants is cheap labor, which is reflected in the price we pay for goods. So, the question to ask yourself is, are you willing to pay that much more for your food? Which will cost you more money- supporting illegal immigrants or paying the real cost of producing food? I don't know what the answer is- I don't know what the answer is for myself, frankly. But I don't see why, if we're serious about illegal immigration, we don't go after the cause of it, and that's available jobs provided by businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#73
06-29-2007, 01:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
GR, I did mention the business angle briefly and you are 100% correct...there will be a cost to stopping these low-pay workers from coming here and it will be as you say, skyrocketing food costs as well as sharp increases in other commodities. The same people who are so vocal about "illegals" coming here will be even more vocal when an orange costs $2!
__________________
"Always be yourself...unless you suck!"
|
|
#74
06-29-2007, 01:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
[quote=ArlJim78]I fully agree that the smugglers are ones to target and eliminate. I'm also with you on the crackdown on employers who hire people through the back door. All of these things done in the dark are subject to abuse.
And many things favor the poor, are you kidding? Just look at the tax code!No fairness there if you ask me.[/QUOTE] Not quite accurate if you're saying the poor get a better deal- the NYTimes ran an editorial in early March mentioning how many, many wealthy people pay less than 10 percent of their income in taxes. And when you factor in sales tax, which affects all income levels the same, the poor are paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy. But I agree; no fairness in the tax code.  Here's the pertinent part of the NYTimes editorial. I'll also post the link, though I think you need to be a premium subscriber to read it. The editorial itself was about the ATM, and an interesting history lesson on it. <<Regardless, until another course is chosen, a law focused on rich investors who paid little or no tax is now a law that affects 23.4 million of the nation's 90 million taxpayers. The story began on Jan. 17, 1969, three days before the Johnson administration was to end. Joseph W. Barr, who served only a few weeks as Treasury secretary, told a Congressional panel about the 155 families who paid no income tax, despite incomes of $1 million or more in today's dollars. Mr. Barr's report made the front page of newspapers across the country the next morning and fueled debates in coffee shops, police stations and across kitchen tables. Congress in 1969 received more letters about these untaxed Americans than it did about Vietnam, according to Michael Graetz, a Yale Law School professor and tax adviser in the George H. W. Bush administration. While the idea of paying your fair share as a moral issue may seem strange today, it was central to tax debates in that era. The disclosure that some of those who had gained the most by living in the United States did not share in the costs of the war infuriated many taxpayers.... Meanwhile the stated goal of the original tax is not being met under the successor tax enacted 21 years ago. A far greater number of well-off families still pay only small amounts of tax. More than 41,000 taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more in 2003, the last year for which figures are available, paid less than 10 percent of their income in individual income taxes. And the number of untaxed high-income families -- once 155 -- grew to 2,824.>> http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...AA0894DF404482
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#75
06-29-2007, 01:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Again, I don't have the answer- I spend more on food than the average person because a lot of my groceries are organic and small-farm stuff. And as a result, I eat less because I don't have as much in the house. I don't mind. But I know I'm a bit of an odd bird in that respect.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#76
06-29-2007, 04:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And my brother, a statistician, was made four different job offers in four different places, doing the same thing for each place (all four were universities) and yet the starting salaries were within a few thousand dollars of each other- so he elected to live in Nashville because the salary would go much farther than in NYC. The higher cost of living was not being offset by his salary. Not to mention teachers and cops in the suburbs make A LOT more money than they do in the city. And private teachers get paid less than public school teachers (who are being paid less than their suburban counterparts). But even assuming an increase in wages would happen, B, my argument was that the increase in wages would not be enough to offset the increase in food prices because the prices are currently so artificially low. By eliminating the illegal worker factor, the cost would increase beyond what an increase in wages would accommodate. So you're still looking at a higher food bill.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#77
06-30-2007, 08:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Thanks for taking the time to explain. You make some very interesting points. I think the border should be controlled as well, but I don't really see that it can be. Since the "war on drugs" began so many years ago, are you aware that despite great efforts by many governmental agencies, less than 10% of illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, marijuana) are intercepted. I really don't have the answer to how the border can be controlled, nor do those that are attempting to control it.
|
Linear Mode
