PDA

View Full Version : How to end illegal immigration



gabosaurus
12-28-2007, 01:14 PM
This comes directly from a (legal) Mexican immigrant. It was posted in a Spanish language e-letter. My sister translated it and send it to me. It is rather lengthy, so I will bring out the specific points.

Blaming the individual migrants for immigration problems is like blaming drug users for the narcotics problems. You have to go after the businesses who employ them.
There is a restaurant owner in Los Angeles whose strategically located parking lot is used by day laborers to look for jobs. Every morning, large trucks and vans would come by, specifically a couple of food preparation places and some landscaping businesses.
About a year ago, INS did a huge raid where they closed down several businesses that employed illegal immigrants. For a couple of weeks, the restaurant owner saw the crowd on his lot in the morning dwindle from hundreds to maybe a dozen.

Whenever you read about INS busts or see them on the news, you see the illegals carted off. The business owners get a slap on the wrist, or a small fine. You don't see them prosecuted or closed down. Because they have lawyers and connections.
Businesses that employ illegals are the newest "speakeasys". This is the new Prohibition. If you threaten to shut down the businesses and send the owners to jail, they won't be tempted to hire illegal workers.

Business owners say this will lead to higher prices. Which is true. It will also lead to more jobs for legal residents, at higher wages.
This is the question of the day -- would you be willing to pay higher prices for all consumer goods, if it would solve the problem of illegal immigration?

Trigg
12-28-2007, 01:22 PM
This comes directly from a (legal) Mexican immigrant. It was posted in a Spanish language e-letter. My sister translated it and send it to me. It is rather lengthy, so I will bring out the specific points.

Blaming the individual migrants for immigration problems is like blaming drug users for the narcotics problems. You have to go after the businesses who employ them.
There is a restaurant owner in Los Angeles whose strategically located parking lot is used by day laborers to look for jobs. Every morning, large trucks and vans would come by, specifically a couple of food preparation places and some landscaping businesses.
About a year ago, INS did a huge raid where they closed down several businesses that employed illegal immigrants. For a couple of weeks, the restaurant owner saw the crowd on his lot in the morning dwindle from hundreds to maybe a dozen.

Whenever you read about INS busts or see them on the news, you see the illegals carted off. The business owners get a slap on the wrist, or a small fine. You don't see them prosecuted or closed down. Because they have lawyers and connections.
Businesses that employ illegals are the newest "speakeasys". This is the new Prohibition. If you threaten to shut down the businesses and send the owners to jail, they won't be tempted to hire illegal workers.

Business owners say this will lead to higher prices. Which is true. It will also lead to more jobs for legal residents, at higher wages.
This is the question of the day -- would you be willing to pay higher prices for all consumer goods, if it would solve the problem of illegal immigration?

I completely agree with the business owners being heavily fined. I believe there are states who are threatening to take away the business lisences of repeat offenders.

I would in fact, be willing to pay more. My reason. Illegals are costing us millions in unpaid hospital bills, not to mention the cost of schooling and free lunches for children.

In the end I don't believe our costs would go up much, if at all. It's been written that most illegals are now working in construction, a job that pays very well and will be filled by legal Americans.

5stringJeff
12-28-2007, 04:52 PM
I completely agree with the business owners being heavily fined. I believe there are states who are threatening to take away the business lisences of repeat offenders.

I would in fact, be willing to pay more. My reason. Illegals are costing us millions in unpaid hospital bills, not to mention the cost of schooling and free lunches for children.

In the end I don't believe our costs would go up much, if at all. It's been written that most illegals are now working in construction, a job that pays very well and will be filled by legal Americans.

I wholeheartedly agree. We should punish businesses that hire illegals, just as Arizona is getting ready to do.

stephanie
12-28-2007, 06:10 PM
I seem to recall that all of us who have been calling for this to happen, to build the fence and stop this invasion from Mexico, have been called every vile name known to man..Even from a few here on this board...

Go figure..

PostmodernProphet
12-28-2007, 06:13 PM
you guys are going about this all wrong.....we need to capitalize on this......okay, over in this corner you have 12 million people who want to work in the US.....over in that corner you have people who say they need to hire 12 million immigrants.....

what we need to do is create a way for the people in that corner hire the people in this corner but take a fee of say, $2 an hour for every job you let the employer fill with immigrant labor.....

then we use that fee to balance the budget......have you people forgotten how to be capitalists?.....

Pale Rider
12-28-2007, 06:15 PM
This is the question of the day -- would you be willing to pay higher prices for all consumer goods, if it would solve the problem of illegal immigration?

You'd have to conclusively prove to me that prices would in fact go up. So far, that is just a unproven claim. There is evidence that in fact prices could go down. Illegal aliens COST this country plenty. If they were all at once magically gone, this country would have a massive financial burden all of a sudden lifted. That's good, not bad.

Gaffer
12-28-2007, 07:04 PM
It's what I have said all along. Crack down hard on the employers and the illegals problem will dry up. They will go back on their own and deporting them won't be necessary. Sealing the border will be easier and will be just to catch the hardcore criminals trying to cross over. But I'm racist for wanting to get rid of the illegals. However, a legal immigrant says the same thing and its a wonderful revelation.

Yurt
12-28-2007, 07:13 PM
gabosaurus;176880]This comes directly from a (legal) Mexican immigrant. It was posted in a Spanish language e-letter. My sister translated it and send it to me. It is rather lengthy, so I will bring out the specific points.

Does this fact somehow make this article/email more authentic? So what if came from a mexican.


Blaming the individual migrants for immigration problems is like blaming drug users for the narcotics problems. You have to go after the businesses who employ them.

Bad analogy. Unlike narcotics, it is much easier to go after the "supplier." Further, are you advocating we let "users" off with a slap on the wrist? Sometimes putting users in jail/prison actually forces them to kick the habit, it works. As such, the same can and should be applied to illegals crossing. We need to make it so that they do not like the reprecussions of coming into this country illegally.



There is a restaurant owner in Los Angeles whose strategically located parking lot is used by day laborers to look for jobs. Every morning, large trucks and vans would come by, specifically a couple of food preparation places and some landscaping businesses.
About a year ago, INS did a huge raid where they closed down several businesses that employed illegal immigrants. For a couple of weeks, the restaurant owner saw the crowd on his lot in the morning dwindle from hundreds to maybe a dozen.

Whenever you read about INS busts or see them on the news, you see the illegals carted off. The business owners get a slap on the wrist, or a small fine. You don't see them prosecuted or closed down. Because they have lawyers and connections.
Businesses that employ illegals are the newest "speakeasys". This is the new Prohibition. If you threaten to shut down the businesses and send the owners to jail, they won't be tempted to hire illegal workers.

Business owners say this will lead to higher prices. Which is true. It will also lead to more jobs for legal residents, at higher wages.
This is the question of the day -- would you be willing to pay higher prices for all consumer goods, if it would solve the problem of illegal immigration?

No doubt we should go after the business owners. However, the slant of this missive seems bent on proclaiming the "innocence" of the illegal migrant which is absolutely false and such thought should not enter your mind gabs. The "user" and the "dealer" are both guilty.

typomaniac
12-28-2007, 08:00 PM
It's what I have said all along. Crack down hard on the employers and the illegals problem will dry up. They will go back on their own and deporting them won't be necessary. Sealing the border will be easier and will be just to catch the hardcore criminals trying to cross over. But I'm racist for wanting to get rid of the illegals. However, a legal immigrant says the same thing and its a wonderful revelation.

I still believe that if the U.S. could peacefully annex Mexico it would be a "win-win" all around.

Yurt
12-28-2007, 08:04 PM
I still believe that if the U.S. could peacefully annex Mexico it would be a "win-win" all around.

huh? why?

typomaniac
12-28-2007, 08:06 PM
huh? why?

Every Mexican citizen becomes a U.S. citizen, and every former Mexican state gets to send reps and senators to Congress. Then there's the jump in U.S. and other investment in what used to be Mexico. Not to mention the extra land, larger tax base, and much more easily controlled southern border.

Yurt
12-28-2007, 08:15 PM
Every Mexican citizen becomes a U.S. citizen, and every former Mexican state gets to send reps and senators to Congress. Then there's the jump in U.S. and other investment in what used to be Mexico. Not to mention the extra land, larger tax base, and much more easily controlled southern border.

actually, you will have extended the "southern" border by thousands of miles on the gulf and pacific side.

further, your idea of "peaceful" and "easy" is absolutely in the clouds.

typomaniac
12-28-2007, 08:27 PM
actually, you will have extended the "southern" border by thousands of miles on the gulf and pacific side.Keeping unwanted boats away from our coastline is much easier than keeping unwanted people from crossing a land border, Yurt.
further, your idea of "peaceful" and "easy" is absolutely in the clouds.The "easy" bit refers to the fact that the land border would be several times shorter in the south.

As for "peaceful..." It might not be as much of a dream as you think. My guess is that plenty of ordinary Mexicans in Mexico would be delighted to have U.S. citizenship for free.

Yurt
12-28-2007, 08:40 PM
typomaniac;177067]Keeping unwanted boats away from our coastline is much easier than keeping unwanted people from crossing a land border, Yurt.

You were wrong, admit it. Just because something is "easier" doesn't mean you were right....LOL. And, I am not sure that securing the southern waters would be that secure.



The "easy" bit refers to the fact that the land border would be several times shorter in the south.




As for "peaceful..." It might not be as much of a dream as you think. My guess is that plenty of ordinary Mexicans in Mexico would be delighted to have U.S. citizenship for free.


Ok, find me something to back this up. Also, is it in OUR best interest to have them included in this country? I am not so sure, in fact, I don't think it is a good idea. The cultures are very different. Not like Canada and the US. I don't think it would be smooth menudo.

gabosaurus
12-28-2007, 10:37 PM
I seem to recall that all of us who have been calling for this to happen, to build the fence and stop this invasion from Mexico, have been called every vile name known to man..Even from a few here on this board...

What does building a fence have to do with all this? You make no sense at all (as usual).
Building a fence will not stop businesses from hiring illegal aliens. The illegals will find different ways to get here. If there are no jobs, there is no reasons for illegals to cross the border.
You can't pull off leaves and expect the tree to die. You have to go for the root.

Why would the U.S. want to annex Mexico? You would be inheriting the country's vast myriad of problems. Close border and eliminate the source of jobs.

Yurt
12-28-2007, 10:49 PM
What does building a fence have to do with all this? You make no sense at all (as usual).
Building a fence will not stop businesses from hiring illegal aliens. The illegals will find different ways to get here. If there are no jobs, there is no reasons for illegals to cross the border.
You can't pull off leaves and expect the tree to die. You have to go for the root.

Why would the U.S. want to annex Mexico? You would be inheriting the country's vast myriad of problems. Close border and eliminate the source of jobs.

you almost sound like a replican there... gosh

stephanie
12-28-2007, 10:58 PM
What does building a fence have to do with all this? You make no sense at all (as usual).
Building a fence will not stop businesses from hiring illegal aliens. The illegals will find different ways to get here. If there are no jobs, there is no reasons for illegals to cross the border.
You can't pull off leaves and expect the tree to die. You have to go for the root.

Why would the U.S. want to annex Mexico? You would be inheriting the country's vast myriad of problems. Close border and eliminate the source of jobs.

Did your parents every teach you manners?
I didn't think so.. They should of washed your smartass mouth out with lye soap..
Maybe if they had of...you wouldn't be so unpleasant to be around..

Sitarro
12-28-2007, 11:16 PM
Every Mexican citizen becomes a U.S. citizen, and every former Mexican state gets to send reps and senators to Congress. Then there's the jump in U.S. and other investment in what used to be Mexico. Not to mention the extra land, larger tax base, and much more easily controlled southern border.

Oh joy, 108 million illiterate people to come here and create an even bigger third world pile of shit. If you want to give these useless idiots your state, fine. Their country sucks and I for one don't want anything having to do with it including their lousy language and attempts at music. They have absolutely nothing but oil and Tequila to offer us.

Larger tax base, what a joke........ a true liberal line of bullshit.

gabosaurus
12-29-2007, 01:12 PM
There is nothing "liberal" about wanting to annex Mexico. I doubt any sane American (liberal or conservative) would want to add Mexico's problems to our own.
I blame spineless politicians (BOTH parties) who are more worried about holding their jobs than protecting their constituents.

Gaffer
12-29-2007, 01:34 PM
Damn, gabby and I are in agreement on something. It's snowing in hell today.

typomaniac
12-29-2007, 03:17 PM
Why would the U.S. want to annex Mexico? You would be inheriting the country's vast myriad of problems.
Most of Mexico's problems are a direct result of having one of the most corrupt governments (and police forces) in the world.

Replace them with honest Mexicans (who uphold laws that are compatible with the US Constitution) and those problems disappear pretty quickly.

manu1959
12-29-2007, 03:19 PM
Most of Mexico's problems are a direct result of having one of the most corrupt governments (and police forces) in the world.

Replace them with honest Mexicans (who uphold laws that are compatible with the US Constitution) and those problems disappear pretty quickly.

all the honest ones are here....at least that is what the news reports claim.....

typomaniac
12-29-2007, 03:22 PM
all the honest ones are here....at least that is what the news reports claim.....

So give them government jobs down there instead...

manu1959
12-29-2007, 03:25 PM
So give them government jobs down there instead...

doesn't pay as well, no free education or health care and you have to pay taxes.....you know how honest people can be....

82Marine89
12-29-2007, 03:31 PM
Most of Mexico's problems are a direct result of having one of the most corrupt governments (and police forces) in the world.

Replace them with honest Mexicans (who uphold laws that are compatible with the US Constitution) and those problems disappear pretty quickly.

So they are only honest if they uphold laws that are compatible with our Constitution? Aren't they allowed to be a sovereign nation with their own Constitution?

gabosaurus
12-29-2007, 04:57 PM
So they are only honest if they uphold laws that are compatible with our Constitution? Aren't they allowed to be a sovereign nation with their own Constitution?

Apparently not. We seem to have this thing about wanting to remake countries in our own image.

Those who know Mexico and the workings of its government and society are aware of the problems. They are powerless to do anything about it.
In Mexico, 10 percent of the people possess 90 percent of the money and power. Graft and corruption is endless and extends up to the pinnacle of power. Mexico is not run by its government. They are figureheads and rubber stamps for large business owners and drug cartels. You don't get elected without catering to both.
The real loser is the average Mexican citizen. Those fortunate enough to have jobs are paid poorly. The lower class have zero chance to become upper class. That is why they cross the border.
Protesting about the way things are run is a good way to die. Politicians and journalists who try to expose the way things run are usually assassinated. Even musicians who write protest or parody songs are killed.
Example: A factory in central Mexico caught fire, killing and injuring scores of workers. The families were not compensated. The injured were fired and replaced. A group of co-workers who tried to protest were arrested by police. Their leaders mysteriously "disappeared." A TV figure working on a story about the fire was assassinated. Two other journalists were beaten and warned not to continue.

If you think Iraq would turn into a bloodbath should U.S. troops leave, wait until you see Mexico if (or hopefully when) they close the border. With no place to go, the average Mexican will be forced to deal with their government. It will be open warfare with business and the drug runners.

typomaniac
12-29-2007, 11:02 PM
So they are only honest if they uphold laws that are compatible with our Constitution? Aren't they allowed to be a sovereign nation with their own Constitution?

Try to keep up, buddy. I've been talking about a peaceful decision on the part of the Mexican states to be admitted to the Union.

5stringJeff
12-30-2007, 07:35 AM
Try to keep up, buddy. I've been talking about a peaceful decision on the part of the Mexican states to be admitted to the Union.

The fate of the former country of Yugoslavia would be one big argument against such a proposition.

typomaniac
12-31-2007, 12:32 PM
The fate of the former country of Yugoslavia would be one big argument against such a proposition.

Wasn't the former country of Yugoslavia originally "united" by force?

Kathianne
12-31-2007, 12:34 PM
Wasn't the former country of Yugoslavia originally "united" by force?

Which time?

http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect12.htm

It's 'right there', the armpit of Europe.

typomaniac
12-31-2007, 12:40 PM
Which time?

http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect12.htm

It's 'right there', the armpit of Europe.

Appropriate question. :) I was talking about 1943, when the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia was partitioned and organized with Soviet backing.

Kathianne
12-31-2007, 12:47 PM
Appropriate question. :) I was talking about 1943, when the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia was partitioned and organized with Soviet backing.

There really was never a question of holding Yugoslavia together, it was always a fiction. Impossible for all in WWI and WWII. Hitler, Stalin both tried. Shit, we've been there 'under' guise of NATO for how many years now? Balkanization of US is not something I want to see happening. I don't agree with the French on much, but language does mean something. More than religion in this case. Balkanization=culture=language

Only Tito kept it 'in check' and that was by Draconian methods.

typomaniac
12-31-2007, 02:25 PM
There really was never a question of holding Yugoslavia together, it was always a fiction. Impossible for all in WWI and WWII. Hitler, Stalin both tried. Shit, we've been there 'under' guise of NATO for how many years now? Balkanization of US is not something I want to see happening. I don't agree with the French on much, but language does mean something. More than religion in this case. Balkanization=culture=language

Only Tito kept it 'in check' and that was by Draconian methods.

Apparently Austria-Hungary kept it in check for a fairly long time, though. I don't remember ever reading much about any tyranny coming from that government.
:dunno:

Kathianne
12-31-2007, 02:29 PM
Apparently Austria-Hungary kept it in check for a fairly long time, though. I don't remember ever reading much about any tyranny coming from that government.
:dunno:

Only for those living there. http://www.courses.rochester.edu/homerin/REL247/Class/serbia/frames/Timeline.html

gabosaurus
12-31-2007, 03:37 PM
I don't understand all this hogwash about how the U.S. is being invaded by illegal aliens. It's only a surge...

Kathianne
12-31-2007, 03:38 PM
I don't understand all this hogwash about how the U.S. is being invaded by illegal aliens. It's only a surge...

While cute, what purpose does that serve?

gabosaurus
12-31-2007, 03:55 PM
About as much purpose as comments concerning Yugoslavia in a thread about illegal immigration.

As for Mexican surge, don't worry. They will leave as soon they stabilize the country. :)

Kathianne
12-31-2007, 03:57 PM
About as much purpose as comments concerning Yugoslavia in a thread about illegal immigration.

As for Mexican surge, don't worry. They will leave as soon they stabilize the country. :)

I didn't start that, just responded. As for your response, pfffftttt

typomaniac
12-31-2007, 04:37 PM
There really was never a question of holding Yugoslavia together, it was always a fiction. Impossible for all in WWI and WWII. Hitler, Stalin both tried. Shit, we've been there 'under' guise of NATO for how many years now? Balkanization of US is not something I want to see happening. I don't agree with the French on much, but language does mean something. More than religion in this case. Balkanization=culture=language

Only Tito kept it 'in check' and that was by Draconian methods.

And to your other point: language differences by themselves are problems that demonstrably can be overcome. Canada has two official languages. Switzerland has three. Neither of those nations is spiraling to civil war because of it.

Kathianne
12-31-2007, 05:16 PM
And to your other point: language differences by themselves are problems that demonstrably can be overcome. Canada has two official languages. Switzerland has three. Neither of those nations is spiraling to civil war because of it.

Both countries have serious problems as do the Dutch. Read up.