Posted on 02/09/2005 9:00:18 AM PST by JustAnotherSavage
The "guest worker" proposal should be changed so that all the applicants would have to apply from their own country --- no law breakers should be given preference over law abiders. Someone who never broke our laws, never obtained fraudulent and stolen Social Security cards and other stolen documents should never be given preference over someone who didn't choose to do that. And the guest worker applicants should come from any number of countries. A Haitian or Ugandan should have equal chances as Mexican ---- our government claims to be behind laws like EEOC --- supposed to be "color" blind and all that. The program has to stop being driven by Mexican oligarchs who are trying to keep from reforming their own very wealthy but extremely corrupt country.
Yes that's right Ron, it's gotten worse because Reagan failed to re-instate the Bracero program.
And unless we re-instate it, and push Bush's plan through, it's going to get even worse.
We will end up with troops permanently manning the borders, the coastlines, and they will still get in. Your plan is defeatist.
Bush's plan will work if you and people like you just get the hell out of the way.
Illegal immigrants already in the United States can only apply for the temporary worker program if they already have a job. The special status would last for three years and could be renewed once, for a total stay of six years. If temporary workers failed to stay employed or broke the law, they would be sent home.
The new legal status would allow illegal immigrants to travel back to their home countries, without the fear they would not be allowed to return to the United States, and it would also help keep immigrants from being abused or exploited.
People outside the country will also be able to obtain temporary worker status if they have a job offer from an American employer. Employers would have to prove that they cannot fill the job with an American worker before they would be allowed to hire a non-citizen as a temporary worker. And if the worker quit, the employer would have to notify the government.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Labor Department and other agencies, would administer the new program, as it does with other temporary visa programs.
That's a plan Ron.
Your troops at the border notion isn't a plan, yours amounts to surrender.
Most of them drown while walking over here.
That's maintaining the status quo, they will not go home, and we don't have the intestinal fortitude as a nation to conduct massive round ups using police and the military.
I will guarantee you that the moment we begin rounding up and deporting 10 million men women and children, pictures of the trains and buses headed for the borders will show up on every publication in the world next to pictures of Jews being carted off to work camps in 1940's Germany, and the deportation notion will be killed by our own people.
Any person that has to ask if I want people on the border to use deadly force as a first option is definate covered by your tagline.
Hanging on pins and needles are you?
I want to be clear about something. I only approve of guest worker programs that are seasonal. I do not suggest the idea we should use tens, hundreds of thousands, or millions of guest workers to hold down full-time jobs
We have a thriving welfare system in the United States. We have many unemployed people. We have people employed on part-time make work programs devised by HHS. These people will work, if forced to get off their duffs and do so.
Well, answer his questions. Or do you need to wait for Michelle Malkin to generate your next set of talking points?
Luis, I wouldn't mind discussing this issue further with you, but you completely ignore the facts. I took the time to respond to your post. I made it very clear what inspired the massive illegal immigration we have today, and you gloss right over the truth. What's the point of bothering to respond to you folks, if you can't comprehend what's written to you?
If you disagreed with what I said, you could have at least have objected. You didn't even bother. Can you read or can't you?
Responding to someone that intellectually dishonest, isn't necessary.
No, he's asking the questions any intelligent person would ask if American troops are going to be involved in any mission:
1. How many troops will you need?
2. Where will you get them?
3. What are the rules of engagement? What is their mission?
If you wish to call this an invasion, and you wish to use the military - then people will ask these questions.
No more claims of intellecutal dishonety. No more questioning the rationality of those who support the President on this. No more of the usual Michelle Malkin hysteria.
If you need to get new talking points from Michelle Malkin, or if you've pulled this idea out from your rear, just say so. But to keep claiming intellecual dishonesty strikes me as projection.
I happen to like Michelle Malkin. I'd be happy for her to write my talking points. If you're having a hard time understanding my response, try reading it again.
I've written what I think about the use of troops on this thread. If you'd like to know, reread it.
All you have said is you want them on the border to stop them.
You've never said HOW. So, Poohbah and I would like clarification.
1. How many troops?
2. Where do you get these troops?
3. What are their rules of engagement?
Do you not have answers to those questions - or do you not wish for others to know the answers tyo those questions?
Look, I don't have to name up front where our troops will come from when I support an operation such as the ones in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is pointless to do so with regard to a deployment on our own borders.
If you can't grasp that, then you've proven my point for me. This is a complete waste of time.
Thanks for playing...
You're right - dealing with someone (namely, yourself) who throws out half-assed solutions to a problem. By not bothering to take the time to think through where the troops come from (never mind how many or the rules of engagement), you have proven my point quite well.
You, Michelle Malkin, and others along the line do not seem to have any real solutions to the present status quo. You're instead purusing policies based on pie-in-the-sky thinking that is done in the name of "rule of law", but will only continue the patently unaccpetable status quo rather than solve the problem.
You are just another loudmouth.
LOL
No it's not an invasion or occupation.
Invasion means invasion, not immigration. Occupation means occupation not immigrant laborers doing less desirable jobs.
An invasion/occupation is a foreign military defeating another nation's military, taking over control of the country, killing or imprisoning its leaders, raping its women, plundering its treasury, confiscating its wealth, enslaving its population, forcing its religion on the conquered.
That's what the constitution means by "invasion". Your perverted meaning won't fly with anyone other than racists and xenophobes. Go to StormFront if you want people to agree with your definition of invasion.
Invasion of British rock bands.
Invasion of the flu virus.
Invasion of foreign beers.
Invasion of hipsters.
Invasion of...
Really? When did this happen? Do you have a poll to cite?
The practical effect of the fact that we have all agreed to accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution means that the constitution says only what the Supreme Court says it says, nothing more and nothing less.
If that's the case then there's no way the Constitution could have gone into effect in the first place. How would anyone have even known to hold elections?
I could give you a list of some of the reasons people oppose Mexican immigrants and you could pick which ones apply to you, but I suspect we all know what the list would look like. It's not very pretty.
That's why people who oppose Mexican immigrants have to hide behind "legality", just like the segregationists of the 60s hid behind "states' rights".
To make their petty little prejudices and scapegoats appear significant they have to employ hyperbole such as "invasion", "destroying sovereignty", "criminal terrorists" "flooding hospitals", "ruining schools"....
I'm surprised they don't have panic attacks every time they see a Mexican gardener. There is no way they can function in the modern workplace where Hispanics hold many supervisory and top management positions. Just look at the conniption they had with appointment of Gonzales.
But the ones who will really suffer are their children who were indoctrinated at a young age to hate Hispanics. Those poor kids will pay a heavy emotional price the rest of their lives if they can't confront and throw off the burden their parents saddled them with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.