U.S. And Mexico-Immigrants

[DeletedUser]

Exactly. The Republicans are perfectly fine with punishing immigrant laborers for their perceived wrongdoings, but when the argument comes to having American business-owners foot the bill for encouraging them you suddenly become an America-hating communist. They can't seem to put two and two together and make a reasonable decision off of it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Exactly. The Republicans are perfectly fine with punishing immigrant laborers for their perceived wrongdoings, but when the argument comes to having American business-owners foot the bill for encouraging them you suddenly become an America-hating communist. They can't seem to put two and two together and make a reasonable decision off of it.

you seem to fail to realize that jsut a few years ago it was REPUBLICANS in arizona that passed some of the strongest legislation agianst buisnesses that use illegals

as well as republicans in many other states



and its LIBERAL Democrats that pushed things like sancuary cities even though they are directly unconstitutional

 

[DeletedUser]

you seem to fail to realize that jsut a few years ago it was REPUBLICANS in arizona that passed some of the strongest legislation agianst buisnesses that use illegals

as well as republicans in many other states



and its LIBERAL Democrats that pushed things like sancuary cities even though they are directly unconstitutional

I think you've made your partisanship perfectly clear, not that we couldn't tell before hand.

You may wish to note that Ronald Reagan, your "quintessential republican," signed some interesting legislature WRT illegal immigrants in the USA. I'd suggest you google it before you go on and on about "republicans," especially since "Republicans in Arizona" do not represent "Republicans as a whole..." Unless you're willing to have your party actually admit that they are all racists...Which was never really in doubt in my mind, but to each his own.

 

[DeletedUser]

Whoa, calling the entire Republican party racist is plain out slander, especially considering that there are many Hispanic and African-American members of the party. It's just a the obnoxious loudmouths who claim membership in the party that make them all look racist.

That being said, I meant to point out that Republicans often look too one-sidedly at this issue, looking for only the seemingly simplest and most obvious answer to stick by rather than accepting to give comprehensive immigration reform a try. This is a result of the rampant populism that the party has encouraged in recent years in which the most immediate and show-worthy decisions are made in order to gain more support from their primarily middle-american audience. These people want more government effort put into this now rather than waiting for better results within a few years.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thats why im indipendant, I dont like the republican way of fixing the worlds problems. Nor do I like how Democrats are trying to change the constitusion for example, gun bans when it states " Citizens have the right to bear arms " in the constitution. But thats a diffrent story.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thats why im indipendant, I dont like the republican way of fixing the worlds problems. Nor do I like how Democrats are trying to change the constitusion for example, gun bans when it states " Citizens have the right to bear arms " in the constitution. But thats a diffrent story.

You're right, it's a very different story. Tell me, how are the democrats trying to change the Constitution.

And, it's part of rather classic discussion, but please also tell me what is the purpose of citizens bearing arms? HINT: It's in the same sentence as "right to bear arms."

 

[DeletedUser]

Make your own Thread about that cause that would be off topic.

 

[DeletedUser]

the democrats simply want to give them all amnesty to increase there dwindling number of voters

simply put the general republican stance is simple before any improvements can be made in the immigration system we need to be able to secure our borders and enforce our exsisting laws if we cant do that they we can never make any other changes work

 

[DeletedUser]

the democrats simply want to give them all amnesty to increase there dwindling number of voters

"In the election, Obama received 62,704,840 vote total"
http://tech.blorge.com

 

[DeletedUser]

and its LIBERAL Democrats that pushed things like sancuary cities even though they are directly unconstitutional

Yet more demonstrative ignorance.

Daryl Gates, a republican and well-known los angeles chief of police, created the first instance of a sanctuary city when he instituted Special Order 40 back in 1979. The purpose of this order was two-fold: One was to focus police services on crime prevention, not immigration. The second, and more important, was to ensure that crimes would be reported without concern for deportation, thus curtailing human abuse instances in which illegal immigrants, undocumented workers, were being physically abused, extorted or harmed (usually by their American employers).

See, the problem here, spider, is you really don't know things from the truth, only from the spin. You haven't looked into the history, the motivations, or the problems that propagated whatever laws/orders are presently in place in various cities/States. And, because of this, you and others have this distorted view that the evils of society were perpetrated because of sympathizers to illegal immigrants. Worse, it is perpetrated as a "democratic liberal" objective.

Yet it's a convenient forget when it comes to Republican President Ronald Reagan who, in 1986, signed the Immigration, Reform and Control Act, which resulted in 3 million illegal immigrants obtaining amnesty. The most fascinating part of it, however, was that this Act was the first major step into making it illegal to knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, due to --- you guessed it --- corporate lobbyists, the teeth of this Act was lost along the way prior to being signed, with the majority of the extractors being Republican congressman.

So, a great idea that was butchered and turned into a bad idea, which is par for course unfortunately.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yet more demonstrative ignorance.

Daryl Gates, a republican and well-known los angeles chief of police, created the first instance of a sanctuary city when he instituted Special Order 40 back in 1979. The purpose of this order was two-fold: One was to focus police services on crime prevention, not immigration. The second, and more important, was to ensure that crimes would be reported without concern for deportation, thus curtailing human abuse instances in which illegal immigrants, undocumented workers, were being physically abused, extorted or harmed (usually by their American employers).

See, the problem here, spider, is you really don't know things from the truth, only from the spin. You haven't looked into the history, the motivations, or the problems that propagated whatever laws/orders are presently in place in various cities/States. And, because of this, you and others have this distorted view that the evils of society were perpetrated because of sympathizers to illegal immigrants. Worse, it is perpetrated as a "democratic liberal" objective.

Yet it's a convenient forget when it comes to Republican President Ronald Reagan who, in 1986, signed the Immigration, Reform and Control Act, which resulted in 3 million illegal immigrants obtaining amnesty. The most fascinating part of it, however, was that this Act was the first major step into making it illegal to knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, due to --- you guessed it --- corporate lobbyists, the teeth of this Act was lost along the way prior to being signed, with the majority of the extractors being Republican congressman.

So, a great idea that was butchered and turned into a bad idea, which is par for course unfortunately.

teh amnisty act was an act of bipartisanship on his part to appease the left who insisted that if they were granted anmisty once then they could focus on preventing further influx's of illegals and you can see how well THAT worked lol

amnisty was a democrat plan that a republican gave them a chance to try out and it proved itself to be a miserable failure

 

[DeletedUser]

the democrats simply want to give them all amnesty to increase there dwindling number of voters

Actually, electing Bush did more to increase the number of Democratic voters than anything the party itself did. :razz:

I don't think the answer is so much to find ways to make it harder to enter the US legally as it is to find ways to make it less necessary for them to do so. Contrary to popular belief, there are many jobs that would be extremely hard to fill if it weren't for teenagers, disabled people and illegal immigrants. If Mexican citizens were given permission to live there but work here, it wouldn't be necessary to cross the borders illegally. It would mean the US could collect its taxes, but much of the rest of the income would be able to help the community the person lives in. Odds are that much of it would be spent here for food, clothing, etc. anyway, which would keep more in the area than having many of them send most of their income back to family that had to stay behind.

 

[DeletedUser22575]

teh amnisty act was an act of bipartisanship on his part to appease the left who insisted that if they were granted anmisty once then they could focus on preventing further influx's of illegals and you can see how well THAT worked lol

amnisty was a democrat plan that a republican gave them a chance to try out and it proved itself to be a miserable failure

Oh what rubbish.

I was a Ronald Regan Republican up until George W was elected and then became an independent.

Not only that I lived in Cali when Ronald Regan was governor.

With his popularity ratings and his own personal belief of what was right or wrong he never did anything to "appease" anyone, especially the democrats.

He may not have always been right, but he did based on his life experiences what he thought was right.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you live in America you probly heard it on the news. Mexicans come into the US illigaly, some to find a new life, other to get rich off of drugs, guns, etc. How would you fix this.

I think you're being a little narrowminded (OK, very)
Just Mexicans? I'm not Mexican and I'm not an immigrant either but you've offended my avatar!
You seem to only care about the bad things.

It's not all bad

I peronally have no problem with Illigal Immigrants. Its the drugs, guns, and money. Polotics are also a problem. In my opinion foeignors are getting a little too much power.

So you do have a problem with immigrants?

Lets assume a buisness owner is losing money on labor. He cuts off the American employees, and hires the cheaper working Mexican immigrant.

I'm assuming you mean an illegal Mexican immigrant, not just an immigrant. I don't know about America but here in the UK if you employ an Illegal you are breaking the law, therefore you are punished, it is the employers responsibility to find out whether the employee is legal or not. Simple.



I don't condone illegal immigration, it's a big problem that's need to be sorted out. And the solution is obvious, it's just not easy to carry out. Enforce laws, just don't let illegals into the country, physically stop them. You can say the same with all crime.

The solution is obvious it's just not easy to carry out, not enough manpower, resources and... yep money.

FYI: It's illegal, not illigal.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, electing Bush did more to increase the number of Democratic voters than anything the party itself did. :razz:

I don't think the answer is so much to find ways to make it harder to enter the US legally as it is to find ways to make it less necessary for them to do so. Contrary to popular belief, there are many jobs that would be extremely hard to fill if it weren't for teenagers, disabled people and illegal immigrants. If Mexican citizens were given permission to live there but work here, it wouldn't be necessary to cross the borders illegally. It would mean the US could collect its taxes, but much of the rest of the income would be able to help the community the person lives in. Odds are that much of it would be spent here for food, clothing, etc. anyway, which would keep more in the area than having many of them send most of their income back to family that had to stay behind.

Much too sensible to be well received on this forum, which is mostly for people to vent their prejudice and sport their ignorance. Worth trying though, as they may learn something by accident. Rep on its way.

 

[DeletedUser]

It isn't that they can't cross the border (if they have a passport), but that they can't legally work here. To get permission, there has to be assurance that they won't adversely affect the wages or opportunity for US citizens to work. That means having a specific employer petitioning for a working visa, and that's seldom done for unskilled labor. Seasonal/migrant farm workers are exceptions.

 

[DeletedUser]

It isn't that they can't cross the border (if they have a passport), but that they can't legally work here. To get permission, there has to be assurance that they won't adversely affect the wages or opportunity for US citizens to work. That means having a specific employer petitioning for a working visa, and that's seldom done for unskilled labor. Seasonal/migrant farm workers are exceptions.

wow, that means they can work only if they won't steal an US liver' workplace?

 

[DeletedUser]

That's true of most places, I think. Years ago, I had a job and place to live lined up in Australia, but I couldn't get a working visa because I was unmarried with a young child. They told me that they had to protect their welfare system and also didn't want me to take a job from a citizen. If I could show that I had any "marketable talents" they'd reconsider. I thought about telling them that I was equipped to do the job of prostitution and had been told I had marketable talent for that line of work, but I didn't think they'd find any humor in it.:dry:

 

[DeletedUser]

That's true of most places, I think. Years ago, I had a job and place to live lined up in Australia, but I couldn't get a working visa because I was unmarried with a young child. They told me that they had to protect their welfare system and also didn't want me to take a job from a citizen. If I could show that I had any "marketable talents" they'd reconsider. I thought about telling them that I was equipped to do the job of prostitution and had been told I had marketable talent for that line of work, but I didn't think they'd find any humor in it.:dry:

Plus. you would definitely be taking a local's job.

 

[DeletedUser]

The life in Mexico is hard.Many people are poor and there ain't many jobs going around.The $50 or so they pay will lead them to a new and better life.Do you think all of these people are drug dealers & homicidals maniacs?Yes, I know that the Border Line security and prevention of illegal immigrants should be stronger, but life is life.The only real threat is from Columbian drug barons going by sea & land into America.This is what should be prevented.Not young children with their fathers and mothers who are trying to get a better life in the Dreamland of USA.

Illegal Immigrants shouldn't be allowed to work, but as was pointed out before.The owners of the companies give the illegal immigrant the job.The owners of the company should be punished first and then the illegal immigrant.The owners should check for the documents and if there are none, immediately refuse giving them the job.That's fair, but the cheap money-rate the owners of these so-called "legit" companies are giving their illegal immigrants is against the law.If the owners know they're illegal immigrants and have no work documents, the owners should refuse it.And from there on, it should be on the owners shoulders the blame falls on, not the illegal immigrant.

"Ain't nuthin' but a chicken wang!" 1st post