Posted on 07/14/2010 7:32:47 AM PDT by kabar
What if instead of granting amnesty in one fell swoop, we did so incrementally, say, to 20 percent of illegals a year for the next five years? That would still have the same ill effects, you say? OK, how about one million illegals a year until the job is done? I can hear it now: "Whoa, Duke, all you're proposing is to trade a knife through the heart for a death by a thousand cuts. A bad idea implemented more slowly is still a bad idea. And illegal means illegal." But wait -- if Congress passed an amnesty plan, it wouldn't be illegal.
You see, a death by a thousand legal cuts is not actually my position. Rather, if you're the average conservative American, it's yours. And what I put forth wasn't actually a proposal. Rather, it was a reality. It's called legal immigration.
Snip
Let's look at the facts. For most of American history, we admitted an average of approximately 250,000 immigrants a year. After the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (Ted Kennedy's baby), however, this figure rose fourfold to approximately one million a year. The result: The rate of immigration started to exceed the rate of assimilation.
But it wasn't just the numbers that changed; it was also the nature. Eighty-five percent of our legal immigrants now hail from the third world and Asia, from non-Western cultures. And many immigrants, such as Islamists, cling to and advance beliefs that are incompatible with -- and destructive to -- our culture.
The proof is in the pudding. Approximately 80 percent of new legal immigrants, once naturalized, vote as our culture-rending leftists do (for leftist Democrats). For a specific example, consider that first-time Hispanic voters cast ballots for Bill Clinton by a ratio of 15 to 1.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
in the past we have always had extensive programs to educate, Americanize and assimilate new immigrants. The difference today is that the people behind this are deliberately trying to Balkanize us.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Plus most 85% of immigrants are from the 3rd world....Meaning they get affirmative action preferences in schools, universities and employment. They get in line before your children and you.
Avoiding Sulla, it’s funny that you should mention the faults of conservatism. I’ve been reading Duke for a while and in 2008 he wrote about exactly what you’re talking about. It’s here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1917
His explanation of the problem with conservatism is the best I’ve seen.
Which, ironically, the only solution is the dissolution of the Union; States wishing to secede should be alowed to.
Excellent article. We need a fence and visa reform to stop illegal immigration. But legal immigration has to be made skills based and reduced. For example, most of the legal Mexican immigrants are as ill educated and non-English speaking as the illegal ones.
We get 400,000 legal immigrants from Mexico each year which is insane. Most of them are poor and will never advance, nor will their offspring
Our government encouraged people to come here for 20 years without threat of prosecution. Even today, it is easy to come and stay. I don't think the laws are really there either. Being here illegally is a misdemeanor for the first incident.
The government allowed them to buy real estate, put their kids in our schools, open bank accounts.
We are the government. Since we enjoyed cheap building labor and cheap fruit, we indirectly encouraged it too. Not you in particular, but us as a people.
Once the border is secure, we will need workers. Remember, we only have 1.2 kids for every two people so we are not replenishing our own people. We have Mexicans as our immigrant/slave culture. Europe has North African muslims. But the dynamic is the same.
I agree on employers too, but again it's complicated. OSHA can fine $10K per incident if a 16 year old kid puts trash in a hydraulic dumpster at the local grocery store. A fine of $10K per illegal would put the onus on employers and probably fix the problem quickly. No where to work-no need to cross. Problem is, you have to give the employer a way to verify. Biometric? Then we all get it or illegals will just forge our required docs and ID.
I'd like to send them all back. In my business, I might be an instant millionaire. But I don't want my kids to have to fight a civil war that could be avoided. I also don't want my dad's neighborhood to loose 80% of its residents overnight. A lot of places in the south will look like Detroit or Dearborn.
Again. No amnesty either. No path, no special status. Write them a ticket for that misdemeanor and lets get the problem solved.
You're right on this, sickoflibs.
Thanks for the tip. I follow Selwyn too, but I don’t recall this one. He frequently turns up on the Savage Nation where he basically reads from his column in one of the Doc’s mock interviews in the 3rd hour. It’s possible his thoughts filtered to mine, but I hope it’s because we both see clearly.
Good men are neither easily deceived nor easily put off from speaking from their heart despite an ocean of neighbors inclined to be angered not by our message, but with us, the messenger.
I posted a comment similar to the one you responded to over at yesterday’s Savage Nation thread. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2551997/posts?page=29#29
There I complained of how even talk radio is showbiz, and it’s why I think we should be wary of anything we hear there.
Orwell expressed it best when he showed that under Statism, the state provides its own resistance. The reality will make any rational man shudder because such efforts are aimed at undermining rational thought hopes and dreams let alone organized resistance to those who’ve taken over the state.
Not enforcing the law is not encouragement. It is dereliction. That doesn't excuse the problem or those who have violated our laws.
A misdemeanor is a crime and the violator is supposed to be deported. And there are plenty of felonies being committed as well including ID theft, failure to pay taxes, falsification of employment documents, tax evasion, etc. One of the biggest "encouragements" was the 1986 amnesty bill, which just encouraged more illegal immigration so people could come expecting another amnesty.
The government allowed them to buy real estate, put their kids in our schools, open bank accounts.
LOL. "Allowed" is just a ridiculous word to use. We failed to fully enforce our laws. A few were prosecuted, but most were not. The SCOTUS (Plyler vs. Doe) ruled that schools must accept all students regardless of immigration status and were prohibited from checking it. And just because the government has done a terrible job of enforcement doesn't mean that the lawbreakers must be excused for their unlawful actions. They committed crimes and must bear the consequences.
We are the government. Since we enjoyed cheap building labor and cheap fruit, we indirectly encouraged it too. Not you in particular, but us as a people.
It is illegal for people who entered this country to work here and it is illegal for employers to hire them. That is the law. Using the rationale that since we did such a poor job of enforcing the laws, it is our fault and the lawbreakers are just victims. It is like blaming the person who left his front door unlocked allowing a thief to enter and steal his possessions. Regardless of whether the door was locked or not, the thief violated the law and should be prosecuted.
Once the border is secure, we will need workers. Remember, we only have 1.2 kids for every two people so we are not replenishing our own people. We have Mexicans as our immigrant/slave culture. Europe has North African muslims. But the dynamic is the same.
Our fertility rate is 2.06, right at replacement level. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 310 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 130 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.97% (2010 estimate), principally due to immigration.
Slave culture? Mexicans and others come to this country voluntarily seeking a better life. Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million.
agree on employers too, but again it's complicated. OSHA can fine $10K per incident if a 16 year old kid puts trash in a hydraulic dumpster at the local grocery store. A fine of $10K per illegal would put the onus on employers and probably fix the problem quickly. No where to work-no need to cross. Problem is, you have to give the employer a way to verify. Biometric? Then we all get it or illegals will just forge our required docs and ID.
We already have laws against employers hiring illegals and the E-verify program is supposed to assist employers in the process. AZ has made E-verify mandatory for all businesses and it has a major impact on the hiring of illegals. They are leaving.
I'd like to send them all back. In my business, I might be an instant millionaire. But I don't want my kids to have to fight a civil war that could be avoided. I also don't want my dad's neighborhood to loose 80% of its residents overnight. A lot of places in the south will look like Detroit or Dearborn.
If we don't get a handle on this problem, you kids will be living in a third country that will be Balkanized along cultural, racial, and linguistic lines. By 2050 the Census Bureau estimates that one in three residents of this country will be Hispanic. We are being colonized.
Again. No amnesty either. No path, no special status. Write them a ticket for that misdemeanor and lets get the problem solved.
That is not the way to solve it. You only make the situation worse. Allowing people to stay and work here is amnesty period. The only ticket they should get is a one-way home.
Again, understood.
You are not “hearing” me. I said, let them in, but THEY CAN NEVER VOTE, EVER! So they will have NO SAY in how we spend our tax dollars ... and if WE, THE CITIZENS of the USA decide we aren’t going to fund “free health care” for them, then they are “on their own.” I don’t want them here either, don’t get me wrong. But if they let them in, then the stipulation as part of the “so called” amnesty is that they can NEVER vote. Let’s see a Democrat pass it with THAT attached to it. The only reason they are doing this is to get votes, so take that away and what reasons are left?
You are not “hearing” me. I said, let them in, but THEY CAN NEVER VOTE, EVER! So they will have NO SAY in how we spend our tax dollars ... and if WE, THE CITIZENS of the USA decide we aren’t going to fund “free health care” for them, then they are “on their own.” I don’t want them here either, don’t get me wrong. But if they let them in, then the stipulation as part of the “so called” amnesty is that they can NEVER vote. Let’s see a Democrat pass it with THAT attached to it. The only reason they are doing this is to get votes, so take that away and what reasons are left?
Know-Nothing Party Platform (1856)
There is nothing new under the sun.
Microsoft and the H-1B visa isn't the main problem. The H1-B's may be abused, but at least they bring in people with brains and education. The numbers are relatively small, compared with the flood of illiterate and/or hostile (think Other than Mexican) illegal aliens that flood across the Mexican border with the connivance of the last three administrations.
The author is absolutely right in that there is a maximum cultural absorption rate. Above that, and with aggravating factors such as a common non-American culture in a large subgroup (Aztlan or Islam), there is no blending; there is Balkanization. If you an analogy helps, think about solutions (aqueous or metallic alloy). Above a certain amount, the new adulterants don't mix; they precipitate.
First of all, thanks to mass LEGAL immigration, one out 8 in this country is foreign born, the highest it has been in more than 80 years [up from one in 21 in 1970] and even without an amnesty, it will be one in seven, and by 2050, one in five will be foreign born. They will be able to vote. And most vote for the party of free stuff--the Democrats. 53% of immigrant headed households in this country are on welfare. We are importing poverty with no end in sight. Did you even bother to take a look at the link I provided to you re Rober Rector's seminal study on the issue?
Immigration is changing our electoral politics. 87% of the 1.2 million legal immigrants we take in each year are minorities as defined by the USG, the vast majority of whom cine from third world countries. They have a different view of the role of government in their lives. And they are radicalized almost from the day they arrive as they are given special privileges such as affirmative action, minority business set asides etc. Minorities and immigrants vote Democrat. Take a look at this recent study that shows a direct correlation between immigrants and party voting covering the 50 and 100 largest counties in America. The GOP is well on its way to becoming the permanent minority party--and this is without amnesty. California should be the canary in the coal mine.
Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects
So the Dems are gaining voters thru immigration and the offspring of immigrants who, by and large, vote the way their parents did. Hispanics are the fastest growing and largest minority in the country. In 1970 they made up 1% of the population; today it is 16%; and by 2050 it will be 33%.
The dimensions of the Hispanic baby boom are startling. The Hispanic birthrate is twice as high as that of the rest of the American population. That high fertility rate—even more than unbounded levels of immigration—will fuel the rapid Hispanic population boom in the coming decades.
Unless the life chances of children raised by single mothers suddenly improve, the explosive growth of the U.S. Hispanic population over the next couple of decades does not bode well for American social stability. Hispanic immigrants bring near–Third World levels of fertility to America, coupled with what were once thought to be First World levels of illegitimacy. (In fact, family breakdown is higher in many Hispanic countries than here.) Nearly half of the children born to Hispanic mothers in the U.S. are born out of wedlock, a proportion that has been increasing rapidly with no signs of slowing down. Given what psychologists and sociologists now know about the much higher likelihood of social pathology among those who grow up in single-mother households, the Hispanic baby boom is certain to produce more juvenile delinquents, more school failure, more welfare use, and more teen pregnancy in the future. And this will creat more dependency on big government. All of this without an amnesty.
But if they let them in, then the stipulation as part of the “so called” amnesty is that they can NEVER vote. Let’s see a Democrat pass it with THAT attached to it. The only reason they are doing this is to get votes, so take that away and what reasons are left?
First of all, I doubt such a stipulation would ever survive a court challenge. And would the American public countenance such "second class" citizens who would be akin to slaves? Moreover, the growing Democrat majority fueled by legal immigration will eventually overturn such a stipulation thru the ballot box.
There are already 400,000 "anchor babies" born every year to illegals. They are American citizens entitled to all of the social welfare benefits from Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. as well as all of the privileges of being a minority. Legalizing the illegals without a vote will not prevent their children and grandchildren from exercising the franchise. I assume that these illegals made legal would be allowed to sponsor their wives and children to join them along with aged parents. The numbers could be staggering if there are 12 to 20 million illegals.
The Democrats have already said the illegals will have to get to the back of the line on an earned path to citizenhip. Under McCain-Kennedy it could take as long as 12 years or maybe never if the illegal decided just to have a green card, which entitles them to all the benefits except voting. In 1986 Teddy Kennedy and his cohorts promised that the 1986 amnesty would be a one-time event and they agreed to the bill's enforcement requirements including penalizing employers who hire illegals. The Democrats never keep their promises and they never accept no as a final answer.
The Democrats aided by such disparate groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Catholic Church, labor unions, the ACLU, and the National Council of La Raza (The Race) have fought in the courts to block state and local legislation that cracks down on illegal immigration. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, third in line to the Presidency, has said that the enforcement of our laws against illegal immigrants is “un-American.” She stated that, “Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?” In Congress, the Democrats have killed enforcement legislation and supported amnesty for those who have broken our laws.
Motivated by parochial self-interest, the pro-mass immigration, open borders, amnesty advocates have formed a powerful coalition including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labor union leaders, the Catholic Church, ethnic and racial groups, “moderate” Republicans, and the Democrat Party. The common thread that unites these groups is power, money, and the prospect of increased constituencies, even at the expense of our long-term national interests and survival.
The bottom line is that the Dems don't need the amnesty voters to become the permanent majority party. The status quo is not an option because the demographic changes wrought by immigration will slowly strangle the Republican Party and an amnesty will just hasten the process putting the final nail in the coffin of this country and the GOP.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born. . Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 309 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 130 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.975% (2009 estimate), principally due to immigration.
We are no longer an agrarian country with a need for large supplies of unskilled, uneducated, and poor immigrants. Milton Friedman said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state. We have both.
Here is something new under the sun. Read it and discover why what is happening today is unprecedented in our history.
I never said it was. I have advocated a merit based system of immigration vice the kinship system we have now. We could do away with programs like H1B if we were more selective about who received an immigrant visa (versus a work visa.)
The author is absolutely right in that there is a maximum cultural absorption rate. Above that, and with aggravating factors such as a common non-American culture in a large subgroup (Aztlan or Islam), there is no blending; there is Balkanization. If you an analogy helps, think about solutions (aqueous or metallic alloy). Above a certain amount, the new adulterants don't mix; they precipitate.
The 1965 Immigration bill is what has caused much of our current problems. The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster
Here are some quotes at the time the 1965 bill was being proposed:
Edward Kennedy: ""Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage."
Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY):"In fact, the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States. … Total quota immigration is now 156,782; under the proposed bill, it would rise to 164,482. Even if all these immigrants came from Italy, for example, the net effect would be to increase the number of Italo-Americans by one-tenth of 1 percent of our population this year, and less as our population increases. Americans of Italian extraction now constitute about 4 percent of our population; at this rate, considering our own natural increase, it would take until the year 2000 to increase that proportion to 6 percent. Of course, S.500 would make no such radical change. Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total-16,500-with the possible exception of the two countries now sending more than that number, Great Britain and Germany. But the extreme case should set to rest any fears that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic makeup of the United States. … [w]e bar immigration by those individuals who would compete for jobs for which the supply of labor is adequate for the demand … we bar immigration by individuals who have demonstrated that they do not hold such allegiance [to our fundamental precepts of political freedom and democratic government]. … If it is true that those from northern Europe, as individuals, can make greater contributions to this country than can others, then this legislation will bring them here. If the legislation does not bring them here, then the assumptions on which defenders of the present system rely are wholly false. … [S.500] will facilitate the entry of skilled specialists … the level of immigration now proposed is far less than that thought 'assimilable' by the most restrictionist Congress [1924] in our history. … As far as the quota system, it [S.500] increases it about 9,000 and as far as a practical matter, it increases it about 50,000. It is not a large number."
Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI): "… the people who have built up America, Anglo-Saxons, and the northern peoples of Europe, are not discriminated against in this bill. … the people from that part of the world [the Asia-Pacific Triangle] probably will never reach 1 percent of the [U.S.] population. … Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.… It will become more cosmopolitan but still there is that fundamental adherence to European culture. … We feel those people [from northern Europe] who have been preferred in former immigration bills would still be treated fairly. … one of the reasons why the United States was attacked, on December 7, 1941, was because of these exclusionary laws [the 1924 Immigration Act] which had fomented so much bad feeling between the peoples of Japan and the United States."
Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach: "This bill is not designed to increase or accelerate the number of newcomers permitted to come to America. this bill would retain all the present security and health safeguards of the present law. the overall effect of this bill on employment would, first of all, be negligible, and second, that such effect as might be felt would not be harmful, but beneficial. The actual net increase in total immigration under this bill would be about 60,000. Those immigrants who seek employment are estimated at a maximum of 24,000. Our present labor force, however, is 77 million. Statistically or practically, we are talking about an infinitesimal amount; 24,000 is about three one-hundredths of 1 percent of 77 million a good part of even these 24,000 additional workers would not even be competitors for jobs held or needed by Americans. I would expect very little change in the immigration from the Western Hemisphere."
Finally, on October 3, at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, in signing H.R. 2580 into law (Public Law 89-236), President Lyndon Johnson stated: “…this is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives…” (Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 89th Congress, lst Session, 1965, Volume XXI, p.479, Congressional Quarterly Service, Inc.)
I don’t disagree that Fat Ted screwed the pooch in 1965. He lived long enough to see that the limitations he promised in the act didn’t turn out as promised... but he didn’t care. He’s on my Top Ten list of Most Destructive American Politicians of the last 50 years. Joined, of course, by the Clintons, Barney Frank, Obama, and Pelosi. I’ve left a few open spots for others to fill in.
No matter what you call it, the result is the same.
LOL. “Allowed” is just a ridiculous word to use. We failed to fully enforce our laws. And just because the government has done a terrible job of enforcement doesn't mean that the lawbreakers must be excused for their unlawful actions. They committed crimes and must bear the consequences.
“Allowed” is just a blanket word for all the laws and regulations that have been written that encourage the lawlessness. Laugh all you want, people drive 5 mph over the speed limit because they know there are no consequences.
It is illegal for people who entered this country to work here and it is illegal for employers to hire them. That is the law. Using the rationale that since we did such a poor job of enforcing the laws, it is our fault and the lawbreakers are just victims. It is like blaming the person who left his front door unlocked allowing a thief to enter and steal his possessions. Regardless of whether the door was locked or not, the thief violated the law and should be prosecuted.
Its not illegal to hire someone to dig fence post holes for cash. The gov’t gives us no way to check them out and has no real protocol to keep track. That is because constituencies on both sides want them here.
And I will blame the guys who left the door unlocked. That is exactly what the government did and they knew what would happen.
Once the border is secure, we will need workers. Remember, we only have 1.2 kids for every two people so we are not replenishing our own people. We have Mexicans as our immigrant/slave culture. Europe has North African muslims. But the dynamic is the same.
Our fertility rate is 2.06, right at replacement level.
I'll give you this until I research further. In Death of the West, Pat Buchanan layed out the birth rates of US citizens with northern or western European ancestry. You probably have to add non-assimilating immigrants and illegal immigrants to get us to replacement value.
Slave culture?
Yes, slave culture. The way they live, philosophy of government, etc. They don't have the a true concept for freedom.
E-verify
Sorry, it's a joke. In most of the industries where you find illegals, they are given a 1099 to self report, they are not employees in the classic sense. There are no federal requirements for the “employer” to to prove or verify anything.
If we don't get a handle on this problem, you kids will be living in a third country that will be Balkanized along cultural, racial, and linguistic lines. By 2050 the Census Bureau estimates that one in three residents of this country will be Hispanic. We are being colonized.
Agreed. That’s why I want to lock the door and separate the wheat from the chaffe.
That is not the way to solve it. You only make the situation worse. Allowing people to stay and work here is amnesty period. The only ticket they should get is a one-way home.
I wish that would happen, but it won't.
No words have meanings. We didn't "encourage" illegals to enter this country. In 1986 there were 1.6 million apprehensions at the border. We have been averaging a million a year since then with the last five years seeing a decline as economic conditions decclined. Not fully enforcing the law is not ecouraging people to break it nor should they expect any different treatment if apprehended.
“Allowed” is just a blanket word for all the laws and regulations that have been written that encourage the lawlessness. Laugh all you want, people drive 5 mph over the speed limit because they know there are no consequences.
And if there were consequences their behavior would change. But should they use the lack of enforcement as an excuse if they are arrested for being 5 miles over speed limit? What percentage of murderers or thieves are caught? You seem to want to use the failure to enforce our immigration laws fully as a means to justify the illegal behavior of the illegal aliens.
Its not illegal to hire someone to dig fence post holes for cash. The gov’t gives us no way to check them out and has no real protocol to keep track. That is because constituencies on both sides want them here.
LOL. But it is illegal to hire someone who is not here legally and it is illegal for someone who is not here legally to work. Both parties are guilty. The government does give us ways to check, i.e., I-9s and E-Verify. If employers are knowingly hiring illegals, we should throw the book at them. And deport the illegals. That's the law. If people choose to disregard the laws of the land, they should suffer the consequences. I guess if someone buys drugs from a drug dealer, it is ok since both "constituencies" want the transaction to take place.
I'll give you this until I research further. In Death of the West, Pat Buchanan layed out the birth rates of US citizens with northern or western European ancestry. You probably have to add non-assimilating immigrants and illegal immigrants to get us to replacement value.
You don't have to give me anything. The source: CIA Factbook The birthrate is what it is regardless of whether the immigrants are assimilating or not. Any one born in the US is a US citizen based on jus solis. He/she is as much a citizen as you and I are. Immigration does drive 75% of our population growth including the 130 million we will add in the next 40 years.
And I will blame the guys who left the door unlocked. That is exactly what the government did and they knew what would happen.
And you are a fool. I blame the lawbreakers. They are the ones who broke in. They weren't invited in. It is like blaming the victim of a rape for dressing inappropriately.
Yes, slave culture. The way they live, philosophy of government, etc. They don't have the a true concept for freedom.
You do indeed have a unique view of the world. We don't have slaves in this country. Any immigrant, legal and illegal, comes here voluntarily with the exception of human traffickers who deal in such trade.
Sorry, it's a joke. In most of the industries where you find illegals, they are given a 1099 to self report, they are not employees in the classic sense. There are no federal requirements for the “employer” to to prove or verify anything.
You obviously don't understand how E-verify works. You seem to believe that most illegals are employed as day laborers. We have an estimated 8 million illegals working in the US. A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population
Agreed. That’s why I want to lock the door and separate the wheat from the chaffe.
Everyone says they want to secure the border. But it will take more than that. About 40% of the illegals came here legally and then overstayed their visas. We need to track the entry and departure of the approximately 50 million visitors who enter this country annually and deport those who have overstayed their visas. The US-VISIT program, passed in 1996, has never been fully implemented. We have the technology to do it.
We should have enforcement first and last. The illegal aliens are all chaff. We don't reward people who broke our laws.
Exactly the same thing has been sad about health care, you OK with that too?
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.