Posted on 12/10/2007 5:00:17 PM PST by Delacon
I can’t imagine you’re going to find too many in your corner here.
Get them out anyway you can. Unless they become ineligible for ANY benefit (welfare, ‘free’ hospital visits, etc) permanently.
No you can’t deport them all, but that would be a start.
Fining employers won’t work, that’ll get passed on to the consumer, prison time however cannot be passed on !
Something IS happening.
I work for a large corp. The building where I work has about 1000 employees, and the contract custodial staff (about 25 I would guess) has gone from being all Hispanic all the time for at least the last 5 years - to no Hispanics. In less that a month.
BooHoo! It is no more "heartless" than putting a father in prison, leaving his young wife and 2 small children to fend for themselves, simply because he robbed a bank or a gas station. Gimme a break.
Many have been screaming "ENFORCE THE LAW" for years.
The only reason there is talk, and that is all it is, about attrition is because the powers that be were shot down so thoroughly on amnesty. As soon as we are preoccupied with the alleged attrition, the b-turds on the hill will sneak through an amnesty.
If they are in prison they cost the taxpayers more than if we just let them roam around illegally.
1) Build the fence and STOP illegal entry by securing the border
2) Deport them swiftly when ever and where ever they are found
3) Cut off any and all social services
4) End the insane anchor baby policy
5) Fine employers who hire illegals
6) End of problem
It is as easy as 1-2-3 + 4-5-6
I’ll agree with 1-4...don’t think the fines will work. And I was refering to prison time for the employers, but still agree with 1-4...= )
“Fining employers won’t work, that’ll get passed on to the consumer”
I disagree. For one, if fines are leveled against all businesses and the fines are large enough then fines exceed the profit made by businesses that hire illegals over legal employees. It isn’t like some unavoidable tax that all businesses get hit with and can pass onto consumers. They get to choose to hire legal employees. Will an all legal workforce cost more than one composed of legal and illegal employees? The vote is not in. When you take in the welfare, crime, societal disruption, etc, the costs of having illegal workers may outweigh the so called benefits to consumers. Bottom line though, I don’t condone lawlessness. I am willing to pay for preventing it. How bout you?
As you say “if they are large enough and if they apply to all” then yeah it could work and would support it...
however...it is the “guvmit” we’re talking about
Ooooops! Sorry! ;*)
Let's just go with 1-5 and give it a try in that order. Can't hurt...may help. (But I do see your point)
Thompson to Announce Immigration Policy
A major part of the plan will be to reduce the number of illegal immigrants by increasing enforcement of existing law.
Forget this stuff about being mean. One amnesty was enough. We just keep getting played for chumps. They have to know we are finally serious.
Actually I don’t think this is so much the guvmit in the “we know whats best for the people” sense. Its the guvmit “we like big business money” sense. Our ole conservative ally is only conservative by convenience. If libs held to a pro-big-business position on most things, then businesses would vilify conservatism. Big-business is amoral and apolitical. Bite them in the ass on illegal immigration and they will fall in line. Its sorta like pollution at the turn of the last century. Big business didn’t like controls on pollution because it played hell with their profit margin. They had to be forced to bring their practices in line with what was acceptable to the people. I’d add that the people had to be convinced that business practices were unacceptable. Like now, the cost to consumers was involved. ILLEGAL immigration is the pollution, in a business sense, at the turn of this century.
You are still talking about deporting millions of people who have committed ID theft, phony SS numbers, failure to pay taxes, etc.
The illegals we force to go back to their countries are dis-inconvenienced by a setback while being sent back to the systems they were brought up in. When comparing that discomfort to our own citizens striving for a living wage to sustain a living - no contest. We should NEVER support allowing illegal aliens here for any reason. Illegals are here as criminals on the very basis of being here illegally (a concept I can’t understand Democrats not understanding). Watching liberal propagandists consistently bypassing that fact while painting the invaders as misunderstood victims convinces me that Democrats are not fit to lead.
“You are still talking about deporting millions of people who have committed ID theft, phony SS numbers, failure to pay taxes, etc.”
You mean ID fraud which includes phony SS numbers and NO I am not talking about deporting anyone. Those broken laws are part and parcel with them being here because they were almost invited here by our welcoming government and businesses. Legally that is called entrapment. Legally if one is entrapped then they are let go and encouraged to not do whatever they did again. Don’t “round em up” but make em go.
LOL. Now you are moving the goal posts from your initial statement that, "Mr. King's organization Dustin Inman Society supports deportation of illegals. I am opposed to this with the obvious exception of illegals who break any laws other than their first one which is being here." Most are committing more than ID fraud. Tax evasion is a separate crime. Working while in a illegal status is a crime.
Now you say you are not in favor of deporting anyone by stating, "NO I am not talking about deporting anyone." I guess that includes drug dealers, murderers, and common criminals. What is your position? No deportation at any time?
They were not "almost invited" here by our government. Just because the USG has done a poor job of enforcing the laws of this country doesn't mean that we are inviting people to break them. We are also doing a poor job of combatting the entry of illegal drugs into this country, but that does not mean that the drug smugglers should be excused for breaking the law. The very fact that you can suggest that we should excuse the illegal aliens for breaking into this country by not enforcing our deportation laws demonstrates the corrosive effect illegal immigration is having on the rule of law.
Legally that is called entrapment. Legally if one is entrapped then they are let go and encouraged to not do whatever they did again. Don’t “round em up” but make em go.
Your reasoning and logic leave a lot to be desired. I guess if I leave my back door unlocked and a thief enters my home and I apprehend him, the police and the courts should let him go because my leaving the back door unlocked should be considered "entrapment." What a bunch of horsesh*t.
BINGO
ping
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.