Immigration, Immigration, Immigration

Geesh - if I type that one more time, I'll start to look like something heading for our open border in great numbers. Seriously, though, immigration reform is currently the most important issue facing America. And that has nothing do with Mexicans, Hispanics, or any other particular group.

The current immigration debate cuts to the heart of the question of America's sovereignty, security and future as a great nation. A nation that cannot or will not control its borders, or enforce its laws is not a great nation, it is a but a great aspiration reduced to going from pillar to post based upon demographic patterns and the undeterred quest for nothing more than the not-almighty dollar.

I am all for capitalism. That does not mean we must sacrifice our great and unique American culture to empower American corporations to make every last penny they can in every case.

The elites that run those businesses, and they are mostly an elite, don't need to worry about America's grass roots culture, they exist above it supported by tremendous wealth. And I do not begrudge them that wealth. However, it does not entitle them to dismantle American culture to acquire even more of the same.

This is the battle for America's heart, if not her soul. And we need to fight for what we believe in. Also see Michelle Malkin here to see what you can do to help.

Does your senator support enforcing our laws?

Comments

[Buzzy]

What we're seeing isn't a free market economy but apparently big business run amok and believing they can wrestle control of our government from the people and disobey our laws any time it suits them. It has become very clear to myself and a lot of people on the right now but the left is still clueless that their politicians are bought and paid for too.

[Phoenix]

The bill is dead.

[BobInStamford]

So's the SURGE. Turn the corner, patriots!!

[Buzzy]

You mean the DEMs amnesty surge don't you BiS, yeah its dead.

[seekeronos]

The bill is dea, but you can be guaranteed that it will return in some other form, or worse, be tacked on at the hind end of some other appropriations bill, or worse, used as part of a compromise for funding the troops in Iraq.

I suspect that amnesty is much more important to Bush's business cronies (i.e. his white-tied "base") than winning the war.

[tk]

Please understand I live in Arizona where we are building housing at a huge rate. Most of those jobs are held by illegals. I am talking about 10's of thousands. The INS could pull up to any one site an check 100-200 workers. They never do. That is what is driving our senator Jon Kyl. He is protecting the building industry. Everyone is against him on the immigration bill but he is not listening to the voters. The two things you will never hear him talk about is AMERICAN workers or holding the Mexican government responsible for anything. In our state the building industry wants these workers and he wants to provide them.

I think these illegal workers are good people who only want to provide for their families and they send billions home to Mexico but if we are to have a country our border must be secure an Americans must come first. If we really want these illegal workers on a permanent basis then we should tell Mexico that for everyone who crosses the border illegally we will charge them 30,000 dollars or take 5 square miles of their land.

But in this bill you heard no talk of American workers or any responsibility for the Mexican government. Wonder why?

[rwilymz]

"Everyone is against him on the immigration bill but he is not listening to the voters."

I'd beg to differ.

Who are those homes being built for? Immigrants? Doubtful in the extreme.

They're being built for the whiny-ass "old-time" Americans who want new houses cheap. Can't get that with American Union Labor... and if they don't get it at all, they whine and whimper and carry on just like a baby needing a dry diaper. That's what Congrassholes listen to: whiners.

Wanna stop illegals coming into AZ to build houses? Don't buy the houses.

Wanna stop them coming to CA to pick lettuce? Don't buy lettuce.

This is not difficult, folks. But your money where your hypocritical mouths are.

"The ...things you will never hear him talk about is ... holding the Mexican government responsible for anything."

How would you suggest that be done? How would you suggest Congress pass a law that is binding on Mexico?

Have we actually annexed Mexico and the papers didn't cover it?

"tell Mexico that for everyone who crosses the border illegally we will charge them 30,000 dollars..."

How do you collect?

"...or take 5 square miles of their land"

The Mex-Am war was so fun, you want the sequel?

Aren't we tired of sequel wars yet?

[templar knight]

To tell you the truth, I'm sick. Sick and tired of business that wants cheap Mexican labor to do what Americans are perfectly capable of doing, have been doing, and have done for hundreds of years. But it's all about maximizing profits, paying no benefits to Mexicans, yet having the taxpayer provide the benefits to these people through the emergency room, and having the schools educate their children for free, have infrastructure provided to them free, and I could go on, but what's the point? Any Republican who supports this greedy, and yes, unpatriotic, crowd is despicable. It's all about the boodle.

And then there are the people who want their yards cut, their houses cleaned, everything done for them without having to pay a fair wage. Slave labor, if you will. This is wrong, yet we all know people who do this. It is shameful.

And the Democrats, who claim to want fair wages and benefits, yet make both of these things impossible by allowing Mexicans to undercut the labor market by working for basically nothing, putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work, or in the alternative, having millions of Americans underemployed because Mexicans have driven down wages. And Mexicans are not doing jobs Americans won't do, they are doing these jobs at slave wages that will not support Americans who don't live 20 to the house. This is wrong. And all for the sake of power.

Frankly, we stand at a crossroads in America. Do we have a nation, or do we just occupy land? As a people, we survive if we have a nation, or perish if we are just here, with nothing to hold us together. I presume the latter is the case after watching the debate in the Senate.

[templar knight]

"wanna stop illegals coming into AZ to build houses? Don't buy the houses."

Haven't bought one, but that doesn't seem to be working. How about asking that laws be enforced? It seems to me that my expectation in this regard(enforcing law) should be easy. Just do it.

"wanna stop illegals coming into CA to pick lettuce? Don't buy lettuce."

Well, I don't eat much lettuce, but I guess your suggestion holds for all manner of fresh fruit and vegetables. If I want to eat healthy, I haven't a choice, or should I go on strike, and just not eat any fresh produce, and risk my health? Again, why should I have to suffer because "elected officials" won't do their jobs, or prevent others from doing theirs? I have an expectation that laws on the books should be enforced.

Anyway, I don't think your suggestions are valid in either case, and this is one of the reasons we need a national government to begin with, to enforce immigration. Or we will be overwhelmed by a rush of third-world refugess, opportunists, and terrorists. I understand there may be 1-2 billion people who would love to come here. If we want to survive, I suggest we put a stop to this unfettered immigration.

[rwilymz]

"Sick and tired of business that wants cheap Mexican labor to do what Americans are perfectly capable of doing, have been doing..."

That's the thing. We are **not** capable of cleaning toilets in Interstate Rest Areas. Those jobs go unfilled until Mexicans come around. Can't blame the businesses; it's not like they hide these jobs from the classified section and slip them under the table at the beaners. Vicente Fox was absolutely correct.

"yet having the taxpayer provide the benefits to these people through the emergency room"

Well, see, but that's the thing. We don't *need* to provide benefits to illegals. They are here illegally; by a very direct reading of our Constitutional principles, they do not get the rights we are obliged to give ourselves. ...so don't give them rights. They wanna work? great, but minimum wage laws don't apply. Get sick? we'll send you a get well card. Can't drive? take the bus.

It was our collective choice to be nice to them when we don't need to. And then to chastise us for doing what we told us to do? Makes no sense.

You're arguing to retract laws that give them social security and medicaid and drivers licenses and minimum wage protections. Okay. They're illegal. So do it. We're allowed.

"...without having to pay a fair wage. Slave labor, if you will."

I will not, sorry. Presumtive, emotion-laden language does not further a rational discussion, simply bogs it down in moral posturing.

"Fair" is what any given person thinks it is. Is it "fair" to an uneducated Mexican who has zero job prospects in his homeland to sneak across the Sonora late at night and go to work for a cleaning service who cannot hire unemployed Americans for $8/hr to clean toilets on I-10 and take the job for $2/hr?

Apparently. They're willing to do it. $2 American is better than 0 pesos Mexican any day, idnit?

"...putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work..."

Gargantuan swill. The Mexicans who come here are uneducated, and if they're taking your job then so are you. The only Mexicans with money you find sneaking in are the drug dealers, and if *they* are taking your job, then ... so are you.

"I don't think your suggestions are valid in either case"

...because?

"this is one of the reasons we need a national government to begin with, to enforce immigration"

Bingo. The job of immigration law enforcement is the job of the Feds. Not local governments. Not even state governments. The Feds.

And **certainly** not individual employers. To make Walmart [et al] do immigration screening because the Feds can't do their own job is cowardly capitulation. In order to catch one illegal immigrant, a thousand legitimate citizens are **treated** like illegals and have to prove their innocence of trying to improperly obtain work. In short: "how dare you try to gain employment in America, American!!"

Wrong-o.

If the feds can't do it, then they need to stop the pretense, and they specifically need to stop pawning off their failed job onto everyone around them.

[templar knight]

So, rwilymz, you're saying that the only people who clean toilets at Interstate Rest Stops are illegals, when I have seen people do it who are not. Or work in restaurants, or myriad other jobs that illegals work, but so do other people, and I mean ordinary Americans. To say that Americans won't do these jobs is wrong. They will, but not for $2 an hr., if you will, nor should they be expected to, since that is against the law.

Your suggestions are not valid, sir, because they don't work, and you know they don't. It would take 100% compliance by ordinary citizens, who might not even know illegals built the houses they buy, or picked the produce they buy. My point is that the housing is really not cheaper, but the cheap labor allows the builder to pocket a larger profit. See how that works.

And no, I never suggested these illegals were taking my job, but the jobs of people who are just entering the workforce, or people who are not college educated, or perhaps not even high school educated, but happen to be American citizens. See how that works. You don't start at the top.

And forcing employers to abide by the law is another province of the Federal Government, and laws should apply to companies and individuals alike. It is not wrong to expect Wal-Mart or other employers to obey the law, and make an effort to determine if they are hiring illegal aliens. Why is that violating anyone's rights as American citizens, since I assume employers check many things on an employment application prior to hiring them, including having them screened for drugs? Are employers now to be exempt from laws, or just immigration laws? I don't follow your "logic".

And my use of the term "slave labor" was hardly "moral posturing", at least not to me, you obviously interpret as you will. But it is a commonly used term for cheap labor. At least in my part of the country. So I will continue to use it, as people I normally converse with know the meaning of the term in question, knowing I'm not referring to slavery. Hardly emotive.

Frankly, you seem to be arguing with yourself, but perhaps that is the curse of the moderate. You try to have it both ways.

[tk]

I don't know about the rest of the country but here in Arizona they don't work for slave labor. They get paid fairly well, but they take the jobs because the builders don't pay benefits, can fire they without cause, no chance of a union, something I started fighting fought for since 1965, on workers comp. and the list goes on. And the saving on the building cost does not go to the buyer, it goes to the builder. A custom home can be built for 80-125 a square foot, the track home builder, using illegals charges the same price. I'll say it again, hold Mexico responsible, and protect American workers first.

[Purple Avenger]

"but the cheap labor allows the builder to pocket a larger profit. See how that works."

The profit on a new house in the $300,000 range here in FL is huge (well over $100,000). When the builders started hiring illegals big time, prices didn't come down accordingly...although quality did suffer.

[Purple Avenger]

ex. I don't think I've ever seen an illegal working as a mason ever strike a joint. Its rarely ever done here, even on exposed work to be painted.

I'm not a mason, but even I have a set of spoons for striking masonry joints buried somewhere out in my garage.

[templar knight]

Thank you, PA and tk, for proving my point. One of the enforcement options that must be available to the Federal Government is forcing employers to make a good-faith attempt to determine whether someone is not an illegal alien before hiring that person. I realize that the government needs to streamline its records to make it simpler for the determination to be made, but how is the government supposed to stop illegal immigration without cutting off the employers who are the driving force behind it? If there is no work for these people, then they will not come, or at least that is the theory.

Of course, many come to have babies, who then are citizens, and by a trick of law are allowed to draw benefits, etc. The Federal Government, including the Congress and the Courts, need to address these and other draws, such as free million dollar treatment for drug-resistant TB and other diseases, and of course, these "sanctuary cities" that refuse to enforce the law. My suggestion would be to cut off all federal funds to any city that refuses to enforce the law, and a change of heart will be forthcoming in a NY minute.

[seekeronos]

I'm not sure how Mexico could be held responsible, as far as trying to assess fines against them or occupy land.

And realigning any penalties against Mexico in terms of tarriffs would be hard to implement, given the "free trade" anthem most folks in Elite NeoCon-land have been singing over the past decade or so.

The best we can do is close down the border (aside from authorized trade movements on easily scrutinized major interstates touching the border, and have plenty of anti-personnel deterrence (the Wall, concertina wire, deep and wide pits with various hungry pack carnivores, anti-vehicle and anti-personnel mines, and more) and a few divisions of mech. infantry and some scout cavalry running interconnected OPs, along with frequently moving units that can quickly set up counter-raid response on very short notice (if they somehow manage to get past the starving rotties, that is).

And behind all of that, have a few Suburbans (SUVs) loaded full of angry Texas good ol' boys with rifles and plenty of ammo. There ain't too much short of a column of armour that will get past those guys, and I'd even say the Mexican armour column might take some losses as well...

And as for foreign criminals (mostly drug dealers and gangsters) we catch from Mexico? I say let's not even bother with the trouble of locking them up - first offense, they get a tattoo on their forehead that looks like a bull's eye with a tracking number, and escorted back through the border gate. They go back to being Mexico's problem.

The minute they show up again in US territory, a cop or even a citizen can shoot them - they get a bullet to match in the middle of that tattooed bull's eye, and a catapult ride back over the mined border. Then they are vulture food, and nobody's problem.

Uugh.

Seriously?

We need to get dead serious about enforcing the laws we do have, and stop locking up our border patrol agents while setting foreign criminals free.

We need to exact harsh financial penalties against employers who fail to verify the residency or immigrant status of thier workers.

For example, there's a builder/general contractor hiring a crew of 100 Mexican illegal immigrant laborers? Yank the company's building licenses, declare the contracts they have null and void (at cost to the builder) and federally suspend them from finishing any other contracts until they rectify the situation.

Ship the Mexicans back south of the border at cost to the violating contractor as well.

And for the drug dealers or any other criminal immigrant that happens to come light in a raid? That day-glo green bulls' eye tattoo between the eyes looks awful tempting.

[Purple Avenger]

FDR had the right idea -- concentration camps. You can always count on the leftists to find solution to thorny issues regarding volume handling of undesirables.

[seekeronos]

Trouble is, PA... the leftists won't be the ones in the concentration camps. Anyone remotely to the right of Ted Kennedy will be rounded up and set aboard the cattle cars to their new "security living areas", the great Re-education centres located in the fringes of the disused military bases closed by the last great BRAC of the Clinton years.

[Cindi]

I'm not a mason, but even I have a set of spoons for striking masonry joints buried somewhere out in my garage.

Posted by: Purple Avenger | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 03:35 PM

PERK on the joints ;)

[Fred Beloit]

What I don't understand about a lot of the above comments is the assumption, the false assumption, that we have a lot of American citizens out of work. What we basically have now is full employment for American citizens. There is no reason not to hire immigrants, not illegal immigrants, but legal immigrants to take low-wage jobs. And what is a low wage for an American is a good wage in the home countries of immigrants. That is why they are willing to take high risks to come here, legal and, especially, illegal. When they get here they get work as best they can, live frugally, and send money back home. I am not for preventing Latins from coming here. We must secure the Border, that is one of the fundamental responsibilities of the Government. Then, and only then, we should hurry to make a temporary immigrant workforce possible. I do not accept for one minute the (mostly) Liberal argument that Americans are out of work, a non fact; slave-wage criminals are stealing jobs needed by U.S. workers, a non fact; it is inhumane to hire them at low wages, a final non fact since most of them are able to live here and still send money home. Does this make some American products cheaper to buy? It certainly does and has for years. What's wrong with that?

[tally]

"I don't know about the rest of the country but here in Arizona they don't work for slave labor. They get paid fairly well, but they take the jobs because the builders don't pay benefits, can fire they without cause, no chance of a union"

Bingo. Same in Texas where we don't even have unions. Domestics and yarn men also make the same wages as legals.

[El Burrito Bandito]

Si, señores Norteamericanos...

except we do not assimilate to become filthy imperialist gringoes. We will bring socialist workers' paradise from Señor Chavez to neuvo Aztlan motherland.

[rwilymz]

"One of the enforcement options that must be available to the Federal Government is forcing employers to make a good-faith attempt to determine whether someone is not an illegal alien before hiring that person."

So ... because the Federal Government can't do the job we pay them taxes to do, they pass it off on us and it's square?

Nay, nay, folks. I'm still out my tax dollars paid to INS for the job they proved too incompetent to handle.

I want it back, or payment in kind. Cheap Mexican labor is one such form.