Posted on 11/27/2005 6:17:30 AM PST by Borax Queen
The Libs can't say this is discriminatory because, Our Blessed Mother and Joseph had to travel great distances back to Nazareth for the census. If they don't file back in their home country and are caught here without a work visa. Then they will be permanently bared from this country, no questions asked.
We must use a carrot and a stick approach!
So, in your deluded excuse for a mind, I'm also anti-business and pro-intrusive and repressive government regulations if I'm similarly opposed to the billion dollar "recreational drug industry" (marijuana, crack, cocaine, meth, etc.) as well being opposed to the billion dollar "recreational sex services" industry (street prostitution, brothels, etc.). I similarly demonize all business in general because I'm against businesses who engage in illegal activities, unfair business practices, etc. So, the bad guys, in your fevered brain, are the ones who frown on sweat shops, child labor, indentured servitude, and virtual slavery. I thought that I could no longer be surprised at the sheer idiocy of the OBL types here on FR, but you've pegged the meter once again.
Sorry it was meant for Dane not you.
Gee...it only took FIVE years to recognize there is a problem?
Other than a really good wall, a requirement that every employer verify SS numbers before hiring and pay huge fines if illegals are employed, and rescinding the ridiculous practice of giving citizenship to children of illegals...none of which Pres. Bush will suggest...this is just a meaningless photo op that will do nothing but anger conservatives who want the Mexicanization of the US stopped.
"A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008"
Ok so I got my propositions wrong. It still does not change certain facts which is that
Most people think prop 187 (which I thought was a good idea), flipped CA from red to blue.
From National Review
Conservatives were the driving force behind California's Proposition 187 in 1994 — but it's hard to find many of them today who think it was worthwhile. Now, eight years later, comes evidence that it may have done some good.
The rap against Proposition 187, which sought to deny a range of public benefits to illegal aliens, is that it achieved a short-term political success at the cost of a long-term disaster. It passed handily at the ballot box, helped reelect Republican governor Pete Wilson, and may have contributed modestly to the GOP's congressional sweep that year. But it was doomed to fail as policy because it attempted to nullify federal law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This was obvious to anybody who read it at the time, a fact that contributed to the widespread suspicion that its essential purpose was not to combat illegal immigration as advertised but instead to elevate Republican prospects by blaming the state's social and economic problems on Mexican busboys.
Republicans have been paying for it ever since. Many Hispanic voters still recoil at the memory of Wilson's television advertisements showing grainy scenes of the border. Fairly or not, they viewed the whole campaign as anti-Mexican. In explaining the near-total collapse of the Golden State GOP after 1994, many analysts understandably begin with Proposition 187.
If that ballot initiative had actually done some long-term good — such as putting a real dent in the number of illegal aliens settling in California — perhaps the political result would have been worthwhile. Yet it did no such thing. Its supporters essentially wasted their time.
Unless, perhaps, a study released today by the Center for Immigration Reform on immigrant welfare use is correct. The report, written by Harvard University economist George Borjas, shows that immigrant welfare use has dropped relative to that of natives since 1996 — but that this national decline was driven by a huge decrease in welfare use by California immigrants. In other words, immigrant welfare use hasn't dropped relative to natives at all, except in California — home to nearly 30 percent of immigrant households — where it fell off sharply.
Writes Borjas: "The fraction of native households in California that received some type of assistance dropped slightly by 1.6 percentage points, from 15.2 percent before [the 1996 welfare-reform law] to 13.6 afterwards. In contrast, the fraction of immigrant households in California that received some type of assistance fell precipitously, from 31.2 percent before [welfare reform] to 23.2 percent by 1998."
What makes California so different? That's a mystery. "There do not seem to be any measurable factors that can explain the precipitous drop in immigrant welfare participation in California," writes Borjas. But he does propose an immeasurable factor: It "could be a by-product of the seismic shift that occurred in the mid-1990s in the social contract between California's native population and immigrants, when a large majority of California voters enacted Proposition 187."
This is impossible to prove, even though it may be correct. Assuming it is true, it still may not be enough to have made Proposition 187 worthwhile — but for those who supported it with passion, at least it's something.
Huh and never once supported the things you have stated above. Oh BTW, get back to me when there are modern slave drivers with whips and slave markets where slaves are sold in modern America. There aren't but you have to use emotional hyperbole and it is very transparent.
Yeah, and I never once supported the demonization of small businesses or those who grow and produce like you said.
By the way, instead of all the flailing about, like you did in your response here, you are permitted to say "OUCH!" when someone nails you right between the eyes.
So, what's your position on the many day labor centers that are springing up all over the place?
Why don't you, Dane, instead of putting your animus toward all the posters here, who you INSIST you agree with about securing the border? I've never seen you complain about anything except 90% of FR posters and Tom Tancredo.
Typical Clintonite.
Guest Workers" should be a definite no-go.
A guest worker program only would provide exploitive employers with cheap labor and saddle the American public with the medical and other social support costs for these people - in effect, subsidizing the exploiters of cheap labor.
Additionally, these people would comprise a permanent underclass of potentially disgruntled individuals who owe no allegience to America beyond securing cheap dollars for their work.
Further, these dollars would in large measure be returned to the economies of the third rate rat-hole nations from which these people come.
Additionally, this would constitute just one more in an disgusting series of "amnesties" for illegal invaders, encouraging further individuals to invade America.
If there is a justifiable need for more laborers in America, we should increase the immigration quotas ACROSS THE BOARD for ALL countries.
This would prevent an inundation of people all coming from essentially the same society, and it would encourage assimilation of these new immigrants into American society and discourage development of ethnic enclaves. It would also provide us with individuals who want to become American citizens and who would have loyalty to this country rather than to some third rate foreign rate hole.
Is there some flaw in my thinking?
Is George Bush so obtuse that they he can't think this out for himself?
What is the rationale for his continued adherence to this flawed policy?
"But it is a felony to knowingly employ an illegal."
Not in Danes Libertarian World.....LOL
But, he's not a member.
And yet again, today another speech about the BP agent shell game and non-amnesty amnesty...
Only the liberal left makes Bush look better.
What is the rationale for his continued adherence to this flawed policy?
Actually, the article spells it out very clearly:
With the backing of businesses who need foreign employees, Bush is pushing a guest-worker program....... . Gee, and I campainged for him, I guess he doesn't represent my views any more.
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.