Tea Party Libertarians complaining of co-opting

[mr_genius]

Illegal immigration is a huge financial issue. With all of the social programs we have, and the financial situations they are in, this might be one of the biggest financial bombs out there. This is literally a trillions of dollars question.

 

^^^

[NorthSideSox72]

To anwer your questions Soxbadger...

 

I would vote for a Constitutional Amendment that made it such that a child born in the US is a US citizen if and only if the child was born to a parent who was here legally.

 

[Soxbadger]

So you would penalize an innocent child for the crime of their parents?

 

You would create a class of people that potentially would have no country to call home. I refuse to penalize an innocent child just because their parents walked across a fictitious border that was created to try and preserve entitlement for others.

 

In my opinion we should accept all who seek a better life in our country.

 

I feel that the least I can do is try and provide the same opportunity to others that was provided to me.

[NorthSideSox72]

So you would penalize an innocent child for the crime of their parents?

 

You would create a class of people that potentially would have no country to call home. I refuse to penalize an innocent child just because their parents walked across a fictitious border that was created to try and preserve entitlement for others.

 

In my opinion we should accept all who seek a better life in our country.

 

I feel that the least I can do is try and provide the same opportunity to others that was provided to me.

It would be nice if everyone could have our lifestyle, but its not possible to make that happen all at once. Immigration has to be managed, or you will destroy what you seek to give. This is reality, not fantasy.

 

Besides, a child born here to parents from country X would have citizenship in country X, from what I understand most countries' laws to be. I obviously don't know all 200-some of them, but that is the common way of doing things.

 

[Soxbadger]

It would be nice if everyone could have our lifestyle, but its not possible to make that happen all at once. Immigration has to be managed, or you will destroy what you seek to give. This is reality, not fantasy.

 

Of course immigration needs management. All those who seek to become American's need to be processed and provided the proper paperwork. But as Ive previously shown, the times of greatest immigration in the US correlate with many of the greatest economic booms in the US. Immigrants are consumers, immigrants are new pieces to the pie, they are new residential developments, new job opportunities. They are what allowed us to settle this country and expand at a rate that allowed us to surpass our European forefathers within 100 years of our countries inception.

 

 

Besides, a child born here to parents from country X would have citizenship in country X, from what I understand most countries' laws to be. I obviously don't know all 200-some of them, but that is the common way of doing things.

 

Yes some countries do allow children of citizens to apply for citizenship.

 

But are we really going to leave these people to the whims of other countries?

 

Its an unacceptable proposition. All humans deserve to live in a country like the United States if they desire. And I will do what I can to make sure that this can happen. We are not truly free until everyone can enjoy the same freedoms that many in our country take for granted.

 

I dont believe that immigrants can destroy America, because I am an immigrant, because 90% or more of us are immigrants. Immigrants are America, and when we lose sight of that we have lost sight of our identity and our uniqueness.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

So you would penalize an innocent child for the crime of their parents?

 

You would create a class of people that potentially would have no country to call home. I refuse to penalize an innocent child just because their parents walked across a fictitious border that was created to try and preserve entitlement for others.

 

In my opinion we should accept all who seek a better life in our country.

 

I feel that the least I can do is try and provide the same opportunity to others that was provided to me.

 

Listen, if you are willing to give away to anyone who asks. I will tell you my name and address, and you can send everything that you want straight to me. The point is, yes that is the ideal, but you have to have it be controlled and reflective of the current conditions in the country. To cite the 50's and early 20th centuries of examples as why this works gets cause and effect backwards. We had jobs for people, and we didn't have an overwhelming social cost structure in both of those instances. That has changed now. It is the equivalent of buying bulks of typewriters because that is what they had in the 50s when we had full employment.

[Soxbadger]

Listen, if you are willing to give away to anyone who asks. I will tell you my name and address, and you can send everything that you want straight to me

 

Im willing to give anyone an opportunity. Where have i offered anything more than a chance at a better life?

 

If an immigrant can come to the United States and take my job, I will shake their hand and tip my hat. They earned it, I had every advantage and they beat me.

 

Why would I be upset about that?

 

Why would I care that they want to come to the US to try and build a better life?

 

In my opinion the United States is the best country in the world and I can understand why people would want a better life for their family. I cant change the world, I cant make their countries the US, but I can try and protect their right to have a chance at a better life. To come to the US to try and get a job, or start a business so that they can enjoy freedom. Because that is the way that the US is going to survive. We arent going to be more authoritarian than China, so we have to be free. Freedom is our ultimate export.

 

The point is, yes that is the ideal, but you have to have it be controlled and reflective of the current conditions in the country. To cite the 50's and early 20th centuries of examples as why this works gets cause and effect backwards. We had jobs for people, and we didn't have an overwhelming social cost structure in both of those instances.

 

The United States has suffered depressions, panics, or whatever you want to call them prior to this down economic cycle. During the great depression the exact same arguments were being made. We have to stop immigrants from coming to the US because we dont have jobs, that we needed to close borders and restrict immigration. And we did, and it did not help the economy, because all it did was take away from the pie.

 

Instead of having an influx of new consumers, you had a static population that had just lost the majority of its savings to a stock market crash, thus having no new capital to start business. (Interesting how you can compare this today's economic climate, as well as the similar arguments against immigration.) Restricting immigration had no positive correlation to economic recovery.

 

All we have is the past, I unfortunately cant see into the future, and if I could I wouldnt be here. Based on historical evidence as well as capitalist economic theory, I believe that restricting immigration is bad for the economy.

 

Given that I believe immigration is at worst neutral economically, I think that there is no reason to deny immigrants a chance at a better life in America.

 

Everyone deserves a chance at a better life, at least thats what I believe.

[southsideirish71]

Im willing to give anyone an opportunity. Where have i offered anything more than a chance at a better life?

 

If an immigrant can come to the United States and take my job, I will shake their hand and tip my hat. They earned it, I had every advantage and they beat me.

 

Why would I be upset about that?

 

Why would I care that they want to come to the US to try and build a better life?

 

In my opinion the United States is the best country in the world and I can understand why people would want a better life for their family. I cant change the world, I cant make their countries the US, but I can try and protect their right to have a chance at a better life. To come to the US to try and get a job, or start a business so that they can enjoy freedom. Because that is the way that the US is going to survive. We arent going to be more authoritarian than China, so we have to be free. Freedom is our ultimate export.

 

 

 

The United States has suffered depressions, panics, or whatever you want to call them prior to this down economic cycle. During the great depression the exact same arguments were being made. We have to stop immigrants from coming to the US because we dont have jobs, that we needed to close borders and restrict immigration. And we did, and it did not help the economy, because all it did was take away from the pie.

 

Instead of having an influx of new consumers, you had a static population that had just lost the majority of its savings to a stock market crash, thus having no new capital to start business. (Interesting how you can compare this today's economic climate, as well as the similar arguments against immigration.) Restricting immigration had no positive correlation to economic recovery.

 

All we have is the past, I unfortunately cant see into the future, and if I could I wouldnt be here. Based on historical evidence as well as capitalist economic theory, I believe that restricting immigration is bad for the economy.

 

Given that I believe immigration is at worst neutral economically, I think that there is no reason to deny immigrants a chance at a better life in America.

 

Everyone deserves a chance at a better life, at least thats what I believe.

 

Exactly how are these new consumers as you have called them going to afford to purchase things and contribute to society. Exactly what jobs are they going to get. I am trying to think how this would work in our current economic landscape. I wonder how attractive these consumers will be the minute they become citizens and get full benefits and a proper minimum wage. I hope you appreciate that the reason that there is a market for this from a corporate standpoint is that the company can cut corners for profit right. Its not because they are in love with immigrants and want to help out someone in their american dream. All countries have immigration control in some sort of fashion. Just opening up the borders is a recipe for chaos and economic failure. Explain exactly where these magical funds are coming from.

Edited November 24, 2010 by southsideirish71

[Soxbadger]

Some immigrants will have money, some may not. Its not sexy to show on tv successful middle class illegal immigrants.

 

People immigrate to America. Immigrants need items to live, immigrants are consumers and therefore even if they are poor they still will consume some items. Immigrants will compete for unskilled labor jobs, which will hopefully increase productivity and decrease cost. Immigrants will pay taxes, they wont get paid off the books and therefore not have to report income to the US. Immigrants will be entrepreneurs, immigrants will be criminals, but in everything they do they will create more pieces to the overall pie. If there was land or space scarcity there come a time where you have reached marginal or no return, but right now the US has a relatively low population density.

 

A problem is "proper minimum wage". Its a govt restriction that artificially increases the cost of labor. It may be a necessary evil, but it creates an artificial problem. The reason why illegal immigrants are preferable to citizens in some cases is that you dont have to pay minimum wage or pay taxes on the labor etc. You can pay them less and therefore can make a greater profit. So if there was not an illegal immigration problem (all immigrants were legal) then there would be no incentive to hire a less killed worker because you would be forced to pay them the same minimum wage. Thus the more qualified candidate will be selected instead of the cheapest.

 

It is my belief that in a capitalist system immigration should be either irrelevant or encouraged.

 

And here is an article by some Ayn Rand guy that explains what I am saying in a fancier way:

 

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics...mmigration.html

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

A qualifier onto the last post...if we were to hypothetically eliminate the minimum wage, that doesn't mean illegal immigration wouldn't exist. It might somewhat cut it...but really, it's not just the low wage, it's the combination of low wages and job conditions.

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course immigration needs management. All those who seek to become American's need to be processed and provided the proper paperwork. But as Ive previously shown, the times of greatest immigration in the US correlate with many of the greatest economic booms in the US. Immigrants are consumers, immigrants are new pieces to the pie, they are new residential developments, new job opportunities. They are what allowed us to settle this country and expand at a rate that allowed us to surpass our European forefathers within 100 years of our countries inception.

 

 

 

 

Yes some countries do allow children of citizens to apply for citizenship.

 

But are we really going to leave these people to the whims of other countries?

 

Its an unacceptable proposition. All humans deserve to live in a country like the United States if they desire. And I will do what I can to make sure that this can happen. We are not truly free until everyone can enjoy the same freedoms that many in our country take for granted.

 

I dont believe that immigrants can destroy America, because I am an immigrant, because 90% or more of us are immigrants. Immigrants are America, and when we lose sight of that we have lost sight of our identity and our uniqueness.

 

I appreciate your position on this issue, but in reality you're just completely devaluing what it means to be an American citizen. It's not simply a title. To play in this game, you have to follow rules. If you don't follow the rules, you can't play the game, period. We don't treat criminals who break the law any different simply because they had good intentions. That's what you're proposing we do.

 

And "leave it to the whims of other countries" - are we the only modern society on the planet? Why is this our problem? If our rules of immigration are so tough and unfair (they're not), then go to another country. Is the US the best country on the planet? Yes. Can you enjoy freedom and success and make a better life for you in your kids in a lot of different countries? Yes. This idea that unless we absorb these people they'll be living in squalor isn't reality.

 

[Soxbadger]

To play in this game, you have to follow rules. If you don't follow the rules, you can't play the game, period. We don't treat criminals who break the law any different simply because they had good intentions. That's what you're proposing we do.

 

Just because there are rules does not mean that we can not question them. There was not always immigration restriction in the US, for a considerable amount of time anyone who wanted to come to the US could. Now there have been residency requirements and requirements to become citizens and be allowed to vote etc, but it has been well settled precedent that all those who are born in this country are citizens of this country.

 

As it stands now, the rule is that those who are born in the US get citizenship. Why is it okay to argue to change that rule, but I cant argue to change other rules?

 

Also your comparison to criminal law is some what misleading. This is a statutory crime, if the statute was to be changed, it would no longer be a crime. While technically they are criminals today, if the rules were to be changed, they may not be criminals tomorrow. I have never suggested how to treat them, I have suggested changing the law so that they are no longer criminals.

 

And "leave it to the whims of other countries" - are we the only modern society on the planet? Why is this our problem? If our rules of immigration are so tough and unfair (they're not), then go to another country. Is the US the best country on the planet? Yes. Can you enjoy freedom and success and make a better life for you in your kids in a lot of different countries? Yes. This idea that unless we absorb these people they'll be living in squalor isn't reality.

 

You and I have a fundamental difference on what we believe America is.

 

I believe that America is a place where "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," is an ideal to strive for, and not just words we give lip service too. I believe that anyone from any continent deserves a chance at a better life, and I believe that if they want to come to America to seek the life, they have a right to.

 

Its not about other countries, or whether you can live a great life there. If people want to live here, they should have that opportunity. You act like people just leave their country for no reason, but there is almost always some reason. Whether it be monetary or political or who knows, people move for a reason, and its usually because they dont have a great life or opportunity where they are coming from.

 

It is easy to turn your back and say that enough is enough. That we have let in as many immigrants as we can, that we are sorry but we already gave out all the hope and freedom we had. But I dont believe that, Im not just going to deny people a chance at a better life to try and protect my wealth. I dont see any need, I am a capitalist, I believe in competition.

 

Balta,

 

Its hard to say. I definitely think that it would significantly reduce illegal immigration because there would be very little incentive to be here illegally as opposed to legally.

[Rex Kickass]

I should have said the illegal incentives. The system works best when immigrants fill jobs not able to be filled by Americans. The problem is we have 10% unemployment now, and jobs are being underpriced by people who don't have to compete on a legal basis. All this does is artificially hold down the people's wages who actually financially support this country.

 

The villains in this argument are not the people who risk a lot to come here illegally to take these jobs that Americans are being priced out of. They are the employers who are deciding to break the law in the name of unfettered capitalism. Changing the constitution to penalize the people coming to benefit from employers who have already made the decision to exploit the rules of our labor system won't change the core problem. It just means you create a permanent underclass.

 

You've been making two arguments simultaneously which don't seem to gel for me. Either these undocumented residents are taking jobs Americans want and would have, and are therefore making a positive contribution to society at sub poverty wages, or they are all just here to take advantage of our social net. (And if that was the case, why wouldn't they just keep driving north to Canada where that social net is far more robust?)

 

I don't understand how people doing honest work for low wages exploit our system when they can't ask for things like workmen's comp, vacation pay, sick days, benefits without risking their livelihood and their residency. And if all these people are just coming to take advantage of Social Security or Medicaid or whatever, I don't understand how they would be exploiting our labor market.

 

And if its a two pronged attack, wouldn't the half that works and won't take advantage for fear of losing their residency cancel out the people who lean on the system in the first place?

[Jenksismyhero]

 

Just because there are rules does not mean that we can not question them. There was not always immigration restriction in the US, for a considerable amount of time anyone who wanted to come to the US could. Now there have been residency requirements and requirements to become citizens and be allowed to vote etc, but it has been well settled precedent that all those who are born in this country are citizens of this country.

 

As it stands now, the rule is that those who are born in the US get citizenship. Why is it okay to argue to change that rule, but I cant argue to change other rules?

 

There's a difference between amending the rules and simply getting rid of them, which is what you're proposing. Our country initially didn't have immigration restriction because there wasn't a need for it. Immigrants came to the country without ANY expectation of assistance from the government. They arrived here, got a job and lived their lives. There was endless opportunity to be successful. Today illegals come here and DEMAND that the government provide for them, simply because they're here. I think it's perfectly reasonable to attach some restrictions to that. And there's not nearly enough opportunity anymore for the people that are already here, let alone the people that want to be here.

 

Also your comparison to criminal law is some what misleading. This is a statutory crime, if the statute was to be changed, it would no longer be a crime. While technically they are criminals today, if the rules were to be changed, they may not be criminals tomorrow. I have never suggested how to treat them, I have suggested changing the law so that they are no longer criminals.

 

I'd be more sympathetic to this view if there wasn't an easy alternative here. There's a right way to immigrate to this country, and there's a wrong way. They continue to choose the wrong way, and I don't think it's right nor fair to everyone else to just ignore that.

 

You and I have a fundamental difference on what we believe America is.

 

I believe that America is a place where "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," is an ideal to strive for, and not just words we give lip service too. I believe that anyone from any continent deserves a chance at a better life, and I believe that if they want to come to America to seek the life, they have a right to.

 

Indeed we do. I don't see the words "the United States of America will provide you with those things no matter where you live in the world." The "right" thing there just scares me. You have no "right" to enter a country and demand citizenship and the benefits that follow from that.

 

Its not about other countries, or whether you can live a great life there. If people want to live here, they should have that opportunity. You act like people just leave their country for no reason, but there is almost always some reason. Whether it be monetary or political or who knows, people move for a reason, and its usually because they dont have a great life or opportunity where they are coming from.

 

Why? Where do you get this idea? This is a country. We need order and procedure. No other country in the world operates like this, and for good reason.

 

EDIT: And really, we already provide the opportunity. You just have to do it the legal way.

 

It is easy to turn your back and say that enough is enough. That we have let in as many immigrants as we can, that we are sorry but we already gave out all the hope and freedom we had. But I dont believe that, Im not just going to deny people a chance at a better life to try and protect my wealth. I dont see any need, I am a capitalist, I believe in competition.

 

You're confusing things here. No one is "denying" illegal immigrants the right to anything. We've set up a procedure and force people to follow it. You're arguing that we're somehow impeding their right to freedom by not allowing them legal status in this country. Nothing is stopping them from going to any other country. More importantly, nothing is stopping them from immigrating to this country the legal way (and I say this with knowing and arguing that the immigration system needs to be reformed to become more efficient).

Edited November 24, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

Today illegals come here and DEMAND that the government provide for them, simply because they're here. I think it's perfectly reasonable to attach some restrictions to that. And there's not nearly enough opportunity anymore for the people that are already here, let alone the people that want to be here.

 

I dont believe that immigrants demand that the govt provide for them. I believe that most immigrants would gladly accept a deal where they are legally in the United States but do not receive benefits until they have paid into the system. I have never suggested giving immigrants anything more than what they have earned, they will start with 0 benefits.

 

And I dont believe that there is not enough opportunity for people that are already here. I see opportunity every day that I wake up, I see so many opportunities that some times I am bothered by the fact that I wont live long enough to take advantage of all of the opportunities available.

 

America isnt about entitlement, it isnt about people who got here first deserve more.

 

America is about competition, bring us the worlds best, and let them all fight it out for jobs.

 

Why would you want to restrict competition? Why would you want to create entitlement?

 

I'd be more sympathetic to this view if there wasn't an easy alternative here. There's a right way to immigrate to this country, and there's a wrong way. They continue to choose the wrong way, and I don't think it's right nor fair to everyone else to just ignore that.

 

I dont believe that people should have to wait years to immigrate to the United States. I dont believe that is the right way, I believe that the rules that have been put in place are the "wrong way" and thus I stand up to them. Immigration laws historically have been a mixture of fear mongering and racism, I dont support that, so I dont support the laws that were breed from those ideologies.

 

I guess there was a right and wrong way to become a freed slave. You could escape (the wrong illegal way) or you could hope that your master granted you freedom (the right legal way). Sorry but I would never consider an escaped slave a criminal, I consider the people who created the law that allowed slavery the criminal.

 

Right and wrong is based on perception.

 

Indeed we do. I don't see the words "the United States of America will provide you with those things no matter where you live in the world." The "right" thing there just scares me. You have no "right" to enter a country and demand citizenship and the benefits that follow from that.

 

No, the United States will provide it to all those who seek shelter in our borders.

 

Once again you bring up issues that try and distort the argument. Who has said anything about "citizenship" or demanding "citizenship", you act as if there are only 2 possible categories for people, 1) illegal immigrant and 2) citizen. Clearly we can create more categories, such as "legal immigrant" some one who is documented, some one who pays taxes, but some one who does not get SS, medicaid, etc until they have hit certain thresholds of payment or unless they decide to opt in through accelerated payments.

 

The answer does not always have to be the extreme, if this truly is about the US economy there is a middle that should benefit all parties.

 

The immigrant is being given the benefit of being allowed to live legally in the US and enjoy the freedoms that come with it.

 

The US is able to tax the immigrant while not having to pay to support the immigrant.

 

Why? Where do you get this idea? This is a country. We need order and procedure. No other country in the world operates like this, and for good reason.

 

Who has said anything about there being no order or procedure?

 

There would most definitely be a procedure to becoming a legal immigrant. There absolutely would be a procedure for becoming a citizen.

 

Just because you allow people to live here legally, doesnt mean that you dont have procedure. It just means that you amend the procedure to allow for easier legal immigration.

 

As for no other country in the world, the US ran this way until the late 19th century. During that time period the US operated fine. The argument no one else does it, isnt a good argument. At one point in human history no other country had a govt that was elected. Does that mean we should have all stayed with despots?

 

Of course not, we as a society evolve and change.

 

You're confusing things here. No one is "denying" illegal immigrants the right to anything. We've set up a procedure and force people to follow it. You're arguing that we're somehow impeding their right to freedom by not allowing them legal status in this country. Nothing is stopping them from going to any other country. More importantly, nothing is stopping them from immigrating to this country the legal way (and I say this with knowing and arguing that the immigration system needs to be reformed to become more efficient).

 

So in the end, you agree with me. I have never said anything more than the immigration system needs to be reformed and become more efficient.

 

My reform is to allow the easiest path to legal status in the United States, which I believe will create the freest and most efficient system.

 

I cant recall ever stating that there should be no procedure, that there should be no rules. I have argued against quotas (I dont agree with artificial numbers that deny people freedom arbitrarily), I have argued that all people should be allowed to legally live in the US if they want to.

 

Living legally in the US presupposes that there will be some procedure to become a legal resident. Whether it be signing your name and being given a legal immigrant number at Ellis Island, or whatever procedure they decide.

 

I just cant stand quotas and artificial restriction on labor. Its untenable with my beliefs.

[Jenksismyhero]

I dont believe that immigrants demand that the govt provide for them. I believe that most immigrants would gladly accept a deal where they are legally in the United States but do not receive benefits until they have paid into the system. I have never suggested giving immigrants anything more than what they have earned, they will start with 0 benefits.

 

And I dont believe that there is not enough opportunity for people that are already here. I see opportunity every day that I wake up, I see so many opportunities that some times I am bothered by the fact that I wont live long enough to take advantage of all of the opportunities available.

 

America isnt about entitlement, it isnt about people who got here first deserve more.

 

America is about competition, bring us the worlds best, and let them all fight it out for jobs.

 

Why would you want to restrict competition? Why would you want to create entitlement?

 

So what of the tens of millions or whatever the number is of illegals here already? You're ok with penalties/fees/back taxes, etc? What about people that can't afford it (i'm sure the majority)? Give them a pass? Seems like a pretty gigantic benefit to me. And they demand stuff all the time. Drivers licenses, access to public education and loans, etc. They demand rights all the time despite here illegally.

 

And you say competition, but it's not competitive. They skirt the rules. If i didn't have to pay any income tax I can do a lot more than someone who does. If i don't have to pay for my families health care or education I can do a lot more than someone does. The idea that they'll come here and compete is a joke, especially when you just open the flood gates like you seem to want to. Just like the rest of our society, some will absolutely prosper, but most won't, and a high number will just be tacked onto the government payroll.

 

I dont believe that people should have to wait years to immigrate to the United States. I dont believe that is the right way, I believe that the rules that have been put in place are the "wrong way" and thus I stand up to them. Immigration laws historically have been a mixture of fear mongering and racism, I dont support that, so I dont support the laws that were breed from those ideologies.

 

I guess there was a right and wrong way to become a freed slave. You could escape (the wrong illegal way) or you could hope that your master granted you freedom (the right legal way). Sorry but I would never consider an escaped slave a criminal, I consider the people who created the law that allowed slavery the criminal.

 

Right and wrong is based on perception.

 

I agree they shouldn't have to wait that long, but I also think I should be able to smoke a bowl or drive 85 or do any number of things that society tells me I can't, so I don't.

 

And yep, having zero choice in becoming a slave is EXACTLY like coming into this country illegally and being "denied" citizenship by the evil Americans who just want to horde human freedom for themselves.

 

 

No, the United States will provide it to all those who seek shelter in our borders.

 

Once again you bring up issues that try and distort the argument. Who has said anything about "citizenship" or demanding "citizenship", you act as if there are only 2 possible categories for people, 1) illegal immigrant and 2) citizen. Clearly we can create more categories, such as "legal immigrant" some one who is documented, some one who pays taxes, but some one who does not get SS, medicaid, etc until they have hit certain thresholds of payment or unless they decide to opt in through accelerated payments.

 

That's not the argument I'm having. I'm having the argument of letting the illegals of today suddenly become legal without any sort of penalty, and not allowing non-citizens come here specifically to get their child citizenship.

 

 

So in the end, you agree with me. I have never said anything more than the immigration system needs to be reformed and become more efficient.

 

No, because you believe in amnesty and I don't. That's the bottom line.

 

[southsider2k5]

The villains in this argument are not the people who risk a lot to come here illegally to take these jobs that Americans are being priced out of. They are the employers who are deciding to break the law in the name of unfettered capitalism. Changing the constitution to penalize the people coming to benefit from employers who have already made the decision to exploit the rules of our labor system won't change the core problem. It just means you create a permanent underclass.

 

You've been making two arguments simultaneously which don't seem to gel for me. Either these undocumented residents are taking jobs Americans want and would have, and are therefore making a positive contribution to society at sub poverty wages, or they are all just here to take advantage of our social net. (And if that was the case, why wouldn't they just keep driving north to Canada where that social net is far more robust?)

 

I don't understand how people doing honest work for low wages exploit our system when they can't ask for things like workmen's comp, vacation pay, sick days, benefits without risking their livelihood and their residency. And if all these people are just coming to take advantage of Social Security or Medicaid or whatever, I don't understand how they would be exploiting our labor market.

 

And if its a two pronged attack, wouldn't the half that works and won't take advantage for fear of losing their residency cancel out the people who lean on the system in the first place?

 

My solution actually punishes the employers who hire illegals.

[bmags]

I didn't get to read the whole thread, it seems to have taken a different turn. But did anyone hear the election week this american life where they examined a tea party group in Michigan. It was very interesting. I'll try to look for it.

[Balta1701]

This is a topical AP article running today (Hosted by Huffpo, but from the AP for those who would never acknowledge that site).

Although fixing the economy is the top priority, Republicans who won greater control of state governments in this month's election are considering how to pursue action on a range of social issues, including abortion, gun rights and even divorce laws.

 

...

The GOP won all statewide races on the ballot in Kansas for the first time since 1964. Republicans picked up 16 seats in the state House, giving the GOP an overwhelming 92-33 advantage.

 

Abortion opponents now plan to make the state as close to an abortion-free zone as possible. Proposed measures would impose new regulations for clinics, restrictions on late-term procedures and increased reporting requirements for physicians. Vetoes by outgoing Democratic Gov. Mark Parkinson and his predecessors blocked such action in the past.

 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lance Kinzer, who serves on Brownback's transition team, said action against embryonic stem cell research and to allow "covenant" marriages, which are harder to dissolve than standard marriages, are likely to be considered, too.

 

"There's a lot of unfinished business out there, isn't there?" Kinzer said.

 

In Oklahoma, where Republicans won all eight Democrat-held statewide offices, GOP lawmakers are planning to bring back firearms bills vetoed last year by outgoing Democratic Gov. Brad Henry. They include a bill to allow the open carrying of firearms.

 

A move to legalize concealed weapons is expected in Wisconsin, where the Republicans scored their most dramatic victory, seizing control of both the legislature and the governor's office. Some Republican lawmakers hope to repeal a law that extends benefits to gay state employees and their domestic partners.

 

It's not clear whether Republicans could win approval of such measures or would wind up in protracted battles not only with Democrats but among themselves.

 

Wisconsin Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus insists the party can manage the competing demands. The economy "doesn't mean we have to exclude tackling every other issue facing the voters of Wisconsin," he said.

 

In Michigan, Iowa and Ohio, where Republicans are replacing Democratic governors, legislative leaders are all under pressure to back anti-abortion legislation but insist they will focus on the economy.

 

Brownback's economy-first approach in Kansas has put him in the rare position of disappointing conservative allies.

 

Rep. Owen Donohoe, a Republican from the Kansas City-area suburb of Shawnee, sent colleagues an e-mail saying Brownback's legislative agenda "may not be as conservative as we wish."

[Balta1701]

Calling it a top priority of the Republican agenda, House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday gave a top designation to a bill introduced by New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith that would ban the use of any federal funds from being used for abortions.

 

The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," given the numerical designation H.R. 3 to emphasize its prominence, would make permanent in existing law any language that bans abortion. It also would provide medical workers with "conscientious protections" that allow them to refuse to participate in abortion procedures against their will.

 

The legislation will "ensure that the taxpayers -- through huge majorities clearly show do not want their money being used to pay for abortions -- no longer are coerced into using taxpayer funding to subsidize the killing of an unborn child and the warping of his or her mother," Smith said in a press conference with Boehner on Capitol Hill

 

"Our members feel very strongly about the sanctity of human life. We listened to the American people. We made a commitment to the American people under the Pledge to America and we're continuing to fulfill our commitment," Boehner said.

 

Separately, Reps. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., and Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill., are introducing a bill to prohibit any money from the new health care law from going to fund abortions.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/20.../#ixzz1Bd4AjHNt