Posted on 01/12/2006 1:41:30 PM PST by VU4G10
Agreed. OTOH, I'm not willing to call these guys "dishonest" en masse. A lot of small-scale agriculture businesses figure they'd go under if they had to pay "American" wages and benefits -- and they probably would go under, too.
Plus which, it's really pretty difficult to get all that upset about a group of people (immigrant laborers) who are willing to come up here and work very hard for not much money. There's a lot to admire about folks who're willing to do that -- and most illegal immigrants fall into that class.
Another question: why is this "A Problem" in the first place? What problem are we supposed to be solving? There doesn't seem to be any agreement on that. The "build a wall" folks are addressing an entirely different problem than the "guest worker" crowd, even if both say they're trying to deal with illegal immigration.
My take on it is that fines and punishment probably should not be the first steps. Rather, I think it's probably best to be able to know who's here, and where they're working; IOW, I think some version of the guest worker program would probably go a long way toward addressing the issues -- and it'd certainly work better than the cat-and-mouse game being played right now.
A guest worker program is a very bad idea. It instantly creates a sub-class of citizen who will immediately be insisting on equal rights. Very short-sighted.
Probably. I suppose a lot of drug dealers and pimps would go out of business if they were forced to obey the law, too. But that's the way it works.
On the bright side, without the competition from outlaw producers, the honest businesses will thrive.
Plus which, it's really pretty difficult to get all that upset about a group of people (immigrant laborers) who are willing to come up here and work very hard for not much money.
If you want to understand why this is a problem, read some of the immigration threads here at free republic. Hardly a week goes by without dozens posts of posts by people who see clinics closing, and cities infested with immigrant gangs and crime.
Most of the illegal immigrants may be only interested in working, but most is not good enough. If 10% of our population is hard-core criminals, then our nation is in serious trouble.
The other thing is that the children of illegals are unlikely to become productive citizens. Because they are raised in a criminal culture outside the law they will become dependent on welfare and crime.
The riots in France are a good example of what happens to a nation that depends on importing cheap foreign labor. In the long run it is very expensive.
The proof of this is the severe fiscal and social problems in the state of California which has been infested with illegals for decades. Productive people are leaving that state as fast as the illegals are settling there.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
One reason Bush was allowed to do this, and the others had to hold off was that NAFTA, CAFTA and the New South American treaty will be working together and give him the power to end America's sovereignty, and work toward the North American free trade Community. The next president, whether Democrat or Republican will be the one who will implement that phase.
One reason Clinton didn't do more toward open borders was his involvement with Lewinsky, his impeachment, etc. He was supposed to get the ball rolling once he got NAFTA passed. He was too tied up with other things and left the open borders part to the next president to bring about. One reason why the Bushes and the Clintons are such good friends, is that they both believe in the redistribution of America's wealth to the world. Which is becoming more and more aparant as we go along. Our debt is 8 trillion dollars, and still Bush implements radical spending programs on money that is borrowed, and he knows we will never be able to pay it back. Thus the loss of our freedom to the ones who lend us money.
When I voted for Bush I thought he would protect America's borders - boy was I wrong. I thought he would be conservative on spending - boy was I wrong.
You can support him if you like, but I won't.
There is room for "government involvement in a free market" and it's unrealistic with any civilization to suggest otherwise. It's the DEGREE of "government involvement" that most of us object to but it's unrealistic, even reckless, to suggest that there be no government involvement.
If and when the "government" is acting on behalf of what's good and beneficial to free markets, that is.
The only "free market" that works "fine" without government involvement is crime. They really enjoy their freedom to do whatever without government involvement.
I'm not suggesting a top heavy "government involvement" to solve the illegal immigration problem and suggest you don't try to replace my good intentions here with corrupt, big government control type violations of what we generally mean by free enterprise.
Without some government involvement, however, the problem won't be solved, as with many others that affect huge areas of our population and economics. There are always cheaters among the human population and I regard "free enterprise" that encourages breaking laws to be cheating. Most Americans support existing immigration and citizenship requirements and the chief "cheaters" involved here are illegal aliens and the people who use them in the U.S. I can understand that to them,, any government involvement is too much but so it is to most who are involved in crime.
I know individuals can't organize their own law enforcement and military. Nor penal systems. There are areas of involvement in free enterprise that require government acting on our corporate self as a civilization and citizenship and immigration are some of those.
You make some good points.
I notice that the story doesn't mention the reports of MS-13 gang members being hired by smugglers to assassinate Border Patrol agents. "Shots across the border" go both ways.
Sorry but gov nap is spending more on baby sitting than she is on the border!
so, let's build the rest of it. Otherwise, mexico will be crying about the US human abuses due to immigrant deaths in the desert.
The first rule of security is if you want your people to do the job, you have to make the job possible.
The current border is impossible to patrol, even with a hundred thousand men. We need to have the physical barriers in place, so it can be patrolled effectively.
The "Government Road" proposal is the way to go. We would have absolute control over this strip, and it would be reletively easy matter to keep the inner fenceline secure. Then all you have to worry about is tunneling under. This will happen, but it will not be useful for the massive migrations of people which are going on these days.
The only reason we are not securing out border is because we do not want to.
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.