"I favor an immigration policy that realistically meets the needs of labor."
There is no great demand for labor in this country. Low skilled jobs are moving off shore by the millions.
"Once that policy is in place I favor tighter border control."
Immigration laws are in place now. You hereby advocate ignoring border control until the laws are changed so that as many or more immigrants from Mexico and Central America are allowed to enter the country legally as are now entering illegally. So your policy boils down to making all the illegal aliens legal aliens.
"My fear is that a faction of the anti-immigration crowd that is motivated by racism will succeed in convincing America to close the border before immigration reform."
You had to throw that race-baiting phrase "motivated by racism" in there, didn't you? Would the border be any more closed if the anti-immigration crowd is motivated by racism than if it is motivated by any other reason? Brain washed one note johnny.
"To them keeping Mexicans out is immigration reform."
Yes, because it is Mexicans, in their millions and millions, who are coming here and demanding to be taught in Spanish and to use Spanish in the work place. Native-born Americans are being put at a disadvantage in the work place since few are bilingual and that is often a requirement in our modern America workplace, given the huge numbers of unassimilated Hispanics in this country.
"This is pointed out by their opposition to The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, which added border patrol and standardization for identification documents."
They (we) are not against The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 because it added border patrol and standardization for identification documents. They (we) are against the bill as it was passed because it did not go far enough in controlling our borders and they (we) know that it was only by adding what we wanted into a bill that the Senate wanted that we had any chance at all of tightening up our border. Unfortunately, RINOOBL's like you are present in the Senate in great numbers.
"Our broken immigration quotas which leave Latinos little chance to enter the US without illegally entering, we will do a lot to reduce the flow of illegals."
I thought you claimed that this was a serious answer. This is nonsense. Latinos have the same opportunity as everyone else to bring in family and they do so in great numbers. There are millions and millions of poor Mexican, Central Americans, and South Americans who would love to come to this country. Your solution to illegal immigration is to allow them all to come to the country legally. No thanks, I want to continue to live in American, not in Mexico, transported north. I have my daughter in an elite private university and she is studying chemical engineering now and will be studying law when she gets her undergraduate degree, so she will be doing fine, even if the floodtide of Latino immigration you desire does occur. But I would rather my daughter and my grandchildren live in the same type of America that I and my parents lived in rather than the sort of society that Travis McGee describes as occurring in Sao Paulo.
"Then we will see bloody revolution in Mexico."
Better that they have another bloody revolution in Mexico than here in our country, which used to be a nation of laws.
"If we both tighten the border and punish business the effect could be synergistic."
I certainly hope so.
"We must have a way of filling the labor needs of business or risk losing the business and the jobs."
I am willing to lose any business that cannot make a profit except by employing uneducated, non-English speaking labor. Let them move to where the labor is and export their product to the US, rather than importing the labor.
Mexico would rightfully resent it if millions upon millions of Americans moved into their country, displacing Mexicans and demanding that Mexico change its culture to an American culture. So would any society worthy of the name.
I disagree. I think 15 million illegals proves you wrong. If the need wasn't here, they would not be here, and they would not be tolerated.
Immigration laws are in place now. You hereby advocate ignoring border control until the laws are changed so that as many or more immigrants from Mexico and Central America are allowed to enter the country legally as are now entering illegally. So your policy boils down to making all the illegal aliens legal aliens.
I advocate changing the immigration laws. I advocate returning illegals who cannot support themselves and those who have broken crimes other than crossing the border.
You had to throw that race-baiting phrase "motivated by racism" in there, didn't you?
I believe many who oppose Dubya's guest worker expansions are motivated by racism. Not all, maybe not most, but definitely many.
What you call race-baiting I call freedom of speech. You have focused on one phrase of one sentence. The rest of my post deals with my reasoning. You can not refute my reason and so you call me a RINO and a traitor and ascribe dishonorable and malicious motives to me based on no evidence whatsoever. This tactic says volumes about the author of this distorted and dishonest interpretation.
Brain washed one note johnny.
Who brainwashed me Einstein? You say Everybody agrees with you. Why have I taken an unpopular position on FR? Because I like bigots calling me an idiot? I'll tell you why. Because I have a duty as an American and a Christian to actually think for myself instead of picking up a pitchfork and marching to the sound of the guns.
"To them keeping Mexicans out is immigration reform."
Yes, because it is Mexicans, in their millions and millions, who are coming here and demanding to be taught in Spanish and to use Spanish in the work place.
Thank you for your honesty. Next time a right fringer tells me that he despises ALL Illegals, not just Mexicans, so much that he's heading to the Canadian border, with his night vision goggles and rifle...I can point him to your comments, and say "Hey Cletus, wrong way!"
They (we) are against the bill as it was passed because it did not go far enough in controlling our borders and they (we) know that it was only by adding what we wanted into a bill that the Senate wanted that we had any chance at all of tightening up our border.
That's brilliant. It's a good bill that does some of what we want...let's send it back it's not good enough. That can be Tancredo's slogan - "It's not good enough." - Tancredo/Byrd 07. S o o o o , were you for the bill before you were against it?
I thought you claimed that this was a serious answer. This is nonsense. Latinos have the same opportunity as everyone else to bring in family and they do so in great numbers.
Then tell me how many Mexicans are legally allowed into America each year?
I have my daughter in an elite private university
Kind of an exclusive university ehh? They don't let just any ol' riff raff, in I bet. May I ask? Did you, perhaps, inherit your wealth??
even if the floodtide of Latino immigration you desire does occur.
I do not want a flood of illegals. I want to let some of the illegals who have families and ties to the community stay on the basis of their work history.
"If we both tighten the border and punish business the effect could be synergistic."
I certainly hope so.
It is obvious that you do not read my posts in a contiguous fashion. Rather you hop from spot to spot, looking for something to attack. Reread my post then try thinking.
Mexico would rightfully resent it if millions upon millions of Americans moved into their country, displacing Mexicans and demanding that Mexico change its culture to an American culture. So would any society worthy of the name.
Mexico is not America and if you knew anything about American history you could not make this statement. Your argument is the same one made when the Italians came, and the Polish, and the Jews, and many more when their home culture and America's ever evolving culture clashed. In each case ideals like sanctity of life, rule of law, and love of God remained.