Senate resuscitates immigration bill

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Amnesty is just.

Really? By that measure, shoplifters should no longer fear prosecution. There are millions of them and according to your logic, it would be just to just let them have at it.

I think a better analogy for you would be something like jaywalking or driving five miles over the speed limit, because that's about as well as immigration has been enforced. And yes, if someone decided we needed to arrest all the jaywalkers (BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL!!!), I'd think there were better use of society's resources.

Neither jaywalking nor exceeding the speed limit by 5mph costs this nation upwards of $10,000,000,000.00 per year. Your analogy doesn't fly.

How much money do illegal aliens generate in with their economic contribution? Lower prices has got to be worth something? Indirectly generating more jobs for higher skilled works has to be worth something too?

The 10,000,000,000.00 is a net cost.

[Boiler 47,521]

I didn't say I don't think they shouldn't enforce the existing laws - they should. But they should have done it years ago before 11 million people rolled over the border.

That's silly.

In 1986 there were 2 million people who had rolled over the border. If the government

started enforcing the laws then, there wouldn't be 11 million illegals here today.

If we start enforcing the laws now, we won't have 30 million illegals 10 years from now.

Same could be said about unskilled worker visas. If we had them in 1986, there would have been a legal way for those 12 million people to get here.

Well not the same 12 million. Or 20 million or whatever.

Probably much more diverse, Chinese and Indians would probably be the majority. So what would the ones who are here now have done?

Plus of course there are the fees to think of, not sure any of the Busines Owners I know would want the time, cost and hassle. And there was a bit about paying the prevailing wage. The whole concept is to reduce costs.

[mawilson 2,133]

Same could be said about unskilled worker visas. If we had them in 1986, there would have been a legal way for those 12 million people to get here.

We don't need unskilled worker visas. There are plenty of unskilled people in the US who are US citizens.

[Dan J 277]

Same could be said about unskilled worker visas. If we had them in 1986, there would have been a legal way for those 12 million people to get here.

We don't need unskilled worker visas. There are plenty of unskilled people in the US who are US citizens.

Then all the illegal aliens should be out of work right?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think that analogy helps as much as you think. Presumably you wouldn't think it fair if after 30 years of being an upstanding citizen, the police decided to prosecute you for a thirty-year-old drunk driving offense. And if it turns out that means you were a felon all this time, it would seem wrong for the local government to claim your house and everything else based on the fact that a felon drunk like you had no right to the jobs you've held and the money you've made.

Exactly.

What is the statute of limitations for most non-violent crimes? 10 years or less in most states? In Texas, it's 5 years for theft, burglary and kidnapping.

Stubborn ideologues who have no reasonable concept of law preaching about lawfulness...oye!

[smoke20 0]

Same could be said about unskilled worker visas. If we had them in 1986, there would have been a legal way for those 12 million people to get here.

We don't need unskilled worker visas. There are plenty of unskilled people in the US who are US citizens.

Then all the illegal aliens should be out of work right?

yes every last one of them.

[mawilson 2,133]

Same could be said about unskilled worker visas. If we had them in 1986, there would have been a legal way for those 12 million people to get here.

We don't need unskilled worker visas. There are plenty of unskilled people in the US who are US citizens.

Then all the illegal aliens should be out of work right?

Wrong. Illegal aliens are willing to work for less, driving down the wages for everyone else.

If the option of hiring illegals wasn't available, businesses would have to pay more for the same jobs,

and everyone would be better off - even if we had to pay 10c more for our carrots.

[smoke20 0]

I don't think that analogy helps as much as you think. Presumably you wouldn't think it fair if after 30 years of being an upstanding citizen, the police decided to prosecute you for a thirty-year-old drunk driving offense. And if it turns out that means you were a felon all this time, it would seem wrong for the local government to claim your house and everything else based on the fact that a felon drunk like you had no right to the jobs you've held and the money you've made.

Exactly.

What is the statute of limitations for most non-violent crimes? 10 years or less in most states? In Texas, it's 5 years for theft, burglary and kidnapping.

Stubborn ideologues who have no reasonable concept of law preaching about lawfulness...oye!

statute of limitation.....they are breaking the law everyday!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Same could be said about unskilled worker visas. If we had them in 1986, there would have been a legal way for those 12 million people to get here.

We don't need unskilled worker visas. There are plenty of unskilled people in the US who are US citizens.

Then all the illegal aliens should be out of work right?

What kind of conclusion is that? All it takes for Americans and legal immigrants to do the work is to offer decent working conditions reflective of a developed nation in the 21st century. Some might need a bit of "help" or "encouragement" to pick up a job by cutting back on the welfare system.

It's just so much more profitable for those businesses that employ illegals to exploit the living hell out of them. And the Senate along with supporters of this shamnesty (nice term, peejay) wants to cement those Manchester like conditions in America and accelerate the race to the bottom. The American people are the ones losing out here effectively lining the pockets of greedy profiteers.

Edited June 27, 2007 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I didn't say I don't think they shouldn't enforce the existing laws - they should. But they should have done it years ago before 11 million people rolled over the border.

That's silly.

In 1986 there were 2 million people who had rolled over the border. If the government

started enforcing the laws then, there wouldn't be 11 million illegals here today.

If we start enforcing the laws now, we won't have 30 million illegals 10 years from now.

Are you just saying in different words what I already said?

Its not unreasonable to ask why this issue wasn't addressed back then before the problem increased exponentially.

[GaryC 7]

I don't think that analogy helps as much as you think. Presumably you wouldn't think it fair if after 30 years of being an upstanding citizen, the police decided to prosecute you for a thirty-year-old drunk driving offense. And if it turns out that means you were a felon all this time, it would seem wrong for the local government to claim your house and everything else based on the fact that a felon drunk like you had no right to the jobs you've held and the money you've made.

Exactly.

What is the statute of limitations for most non-violent crimes? 10 years or less in most states? In Texas, it's 5 years for theft, burglary and kidnapping.

Stubborn ideologues who have no reasonable concept of law preaching about lawfulness...oye!

And blind apologists to the illegals not understanding the need for following laws....oye!

[mawilson 2,133]

Are you just saying in different words what I already said?

Its not unreasonable to ask why this issue wasn't addressed back then before the problem increased exponentially.

The same reason it's not being addressed now, I suppose.

All I'm saying is that it's never too late to start. The fact that it wasn't done back then

doesn't mean that not doing it now is any more legitimate.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think that analogy helps as much as you think. Presumably you wouldn't think it fair if after 30 years of being an upstanding citizen, the police decided to prosecute you for a thirty-year-old drunk driving offense. And if it turns out that means you were a felon all this time, it would seem wrong for the local government to claim your house and everything else based on the fact that a felon drunk like you had no right to the jobs you've held and the money you've made.

Exactly.

What is the statute of limitations for most non-violent crimes? 10 years or less in most states? In Texas, it's 5 years for theft, burglary and kidnapping.

Stubborn ideologues who have no reasonable concept of law preaching about lawfulness...oye!

statute of limitation.....they are breaking the law everyday!

Is that a legal opinion or just yours?

I don't think that analogy helps as much as you think. Presumably you wouldn't think it fair if after 30 years of being an upstanding citizen, the police decided to prosecute you for a thirty-year-old drunk driving offense. And if it turns out that means you were a felon all this time, it would seem wrong for the local government to claim your house and everything else based on the fact that a felon drunk like you had no right to the jobs you've held and the money you've made.

Exactly.

What is the statute of limitations for most non-violent crimes? 10 years or less in most states? In Texas, it's 5 years for theft, burglary and kidnapping.

Stubborn ideologues who have no reasonable concept of law preaching about lawfulness...oye!

And blind apologists to the illegals not understanding the need for following laws....oye!

Fortunately, for the integrity of our laws, any non-legal opinion really doesn't count, does it?

[Alex+R 0]

I don't think that analogy helps as much as you think. Presumably you wouldn't think it fair if after 30 years of being an upstanding citizen, the police decided to prosecute you for a thirty-year-old drunk driving offense. And if it turns out that means you were a felon all this time, it would seem wrong for the local government to claim your house and everything else based on the fact that a felon drunk like you had no right to the jobs you've held and the money you've made.

Exactly.

What is the statute of limitations for most non-violent crimes? 10 years or less in most states? In Texas, it's 5 years for theft, burglary and kidnapping.

Stubborn ideologues who have no reasonable concept of law preaching about lawfulness...oye!

And blind apologists to the illegals not understanding the need for following laws....oye!

Gary, you don't want to know which 30-year-old behavior (illegal border crossing or drunk driving) your average American would probably rather see prosecuted. Only on of those things was criminal and only one endangered lives of innocent people.

If "the law is the law" then shouldn't you be turning yourself in?

Edited June 27, 2007 by Alex+R

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

erekose, please tell me if you now agree that illegal aliens are daily breaking the law. If not please let me know your reasoning.

The 'act' of becoming an illegal immigrant is undocumented border entry or visa overstay. To break that specific law everyday - would a person not need to go back and forth across the border on a daily basis. Surely?

BTW - I'm aware that there are secondary issues pertaining to being undocumented. But those are separate offenses - like driving without a license or insurance and stopping off on the way to shoplift at a gas-station.

Are you just saying in different words what I already said?

Its not unreasonable to ask why this issue wasn't addressed back then before the problem increased exponentially.

The same reason it's not being addressed now, I suppose.

All I'm saying is that it's never too late to start. The fact that it wasn't done back then

doesn't mean that not doing it now is any more legitimate.

Sure - but I'd like to hear more specifics on how its practically achievable.