PDA

View Full Version : Immigration Bill - my thoughts


Logical
06-02-2007, 12:25 AM
If you want to read a professional column then you can pass on this thread. This thread is to express my thoughts and discuss them with my Planet bretheren.

1st - Any fence is a waste of money, but 370 miles of fence on a 2000+ mile border is a total waste and just silly.

2nd - I am in favor of amnesty but lets call it that and make the screening process allow for more than 24 hours.

3rd - A guest worker program is a great idea but lets limit it to people who speak English (I know this is un-PC) to facilitate immersion of the hispanics into our culture.

4th - Illegals applying for amnesty will be given a SS# but must work under that number for a minimum of 10 years to be eligible for any benefits.

5th - Emergency room care is for emergency patients, you don't have insurance you are not getting free care any longer unless it is really an emergency case. Triage to determine eligibility, no insurance, no recourse.

6th - End the automatic citizenship for children born to illegals (again here I break with the PC rules)

7th - We need to make it easier to immigrate legally, we have a rapidly retiring work force and frankly we will need the workers very soon.

8th - No welfare unless you are a citizen or a legal resident for at least 5 years.

9th - Bring the troops home and set them up along our borders guarding the borders (not a violation of Posse Commitas IMO as they are guarding against invaders).

10th - Give Mexico most favored nation trading status to facilitate growth in their economy. If their economy improves then less people will want to immigrate.

Those are my ideas, what do you think?

alnorth
06-02-2007, 12:35 AM
I find little to disagree with on 1 through 8.

Regarding #10, Mexico already has MFN status. Most Favored Nation trading status is a misnomer, because of all the countries in the world, currently only North Korea and Cuba are being denied MFN status with the United States.

All it really means is that we will not favor another nation over an MFN nation on tariffs. MFN does not impact non-tariff embargoes. (e.g. we had difficult and highly restrictive trading relations with many middle-east countries in the past without technically revoking MFN)

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-02-2007, 12:37 AM
I agree with all of them, with the exception of #10, with which I'm not sure. I read some of your comments regarding this earlier, but am not well-versed enough in the legalese regarding the "status" to make an honest judgement.

Well thought out though.

Logical
06-02-2007, 12:37 AM
I find little to disagree with on 1 through 8.

Regarding #10, Mexico already has MFN status. Most Favored Nation trading status is a misnomer, because of all the countries in the world, currently only North Korea and Cuba are being denied MFN status with the United States.

All it really means is that we will not favor another nation over an MFN nation on tariffs. MFN does not impact non-tariff embargoes. (e.g. we had difficult and highly restrictive trading relations in the past with many middle-east countries in the past without technically revoking MFN)

Interesting. What do you think of 9, you said you had little to disagree with on 1-8 but you did not comment on 9.

Logical
06-02-2007, 12:38 AM
I agree with all of them, with the exception of #10, with which I'm not sure. I read some of your comments regarding this earlier, but am not well-versed enough in the legalese regarding the "status" to make an honest judgement.

Well thought out though.Thanks

alnorth
06-02-2007, 12:39 AM
Interesting. What do you think of 9, you said you had little to disagree with on 1-8 but you did not comment on 9.

I'll punt. To be completely honest, I am torn on the Iraq issue, I do not have the clarity I had as recently as a few months ago.

Logical
06-02-2007, 01:08 AM
I'll punt. To be completely honest, I am torn on the Iraq issue, I do not have the clarity I had as recently as a few months ago.

I think you are in growing company on that.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-02-2007, 01:23 AM
I think #5 is ridiculous. Let me give you an example of someone who should absolutely not be denied medical attention. Person has a mental disorder. Jumps from job to job because medication is not as effective as it is for some. Low level wages, pre existing condition clauses in health plans, and a necessity to have access to a doctor for medication evaluations or breakdowns. The same thing goes for physical ailments rather than mental ones. We have a responsibility as a country who's willing to feed the world, to at least provide some basic doctor access to EVERY American.

I'll jump on the bandwagon and bitch about a lot of taxes. The poor take a beating as it is, at some point we have to stop taking everything away from them. There are some misfortunate souls out there who didn't have the luck of winning the genetic lottery, they may pay less in taxes, but what they pay impacts their lives far greater. It's not a choice for them between a motorcycle or a sea doo. It's a choice between Pork steak or Top Ramen.

Logical
06-02-2007, 01:35 AM
I think #5 is ridiculous. Let me give you an example of someone who should absolutely not be denied medical attention. Person has a mental disorder. Jumps from job to job because medication is not as effective as it is for some. Low level wages, pre existing condition clauses in health plans, and a necessity to have access to a doctor for medication evaluations or breakdowns. The same thing goes for physical ailments rather than mental ones. We have a responsibility as a country who's willing to feed the world, to at least provide some basic doctor access to EVERY American.

I'll jump on the bandwagon and bitch about a lot of taxes. The poor take a beating as it is, at some point we have to stop taking everything away from them. There are some misfortunate souls out there who didn't have the luck of winning the genetic lottery, they may pay less in taxes, but what they pay impacts their lives far greater. It's not a choice for them between a motorcycle or a sea doo. It's a choice between Pork steak or Top Ramen.

I am talking about an overburdened system. The emergency room is for emergency care not care of every medical condition that can befall an individual. Seriously if we want to set up clinics for that sort of care then lets fund them and do it straight out.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2007, 01:49 AM
Seriously if we want to set up clinics for that sort of care then lets fund them and do it straight out.

Funded by federal dollars? State? County? City? Funded "straight out" from who's pockets specifically?

Logical
06-02-2007, 01:53 AM
Funded by federal dollars? State? County? City? Funded "straight out" from who's pockets specifically?

If you are going to do it right it will take federal tax and federal funding. I personally think a National Health Insurance is a better idea than that, but this is a compromise that would be less like socialized medicine for everyone.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2007, 02:04 AM
If you are going to do it right it will take federal tax and federal funding.

Well I'm not willing to do it right, then I guess.

I personally think a National Health Insurance is a better idea than that, but this is a compromise that would be less like socialized medicine for everyone.

How is this a compromise, Logical? How is this "less like socialized medicine?"

Logical
06-02-2007, 02:35 AM
Well I'm not willing to do it right, then I guess.



How is this a compromise, Logical? How is this "less like socialized medicine?"

Socialized medicine would have all of us using the system, not just those who cannot afford private insurance.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2007, 02:46 AM
Socialized medicine would have all of us using the system, not just those who cannot afford private insurance.

But then anyone who decides not to self-insure will be eligible? No thanks.

Logical
06-02-2007, 02:57 AM
But then anyone who decides not to self-insure will be eligible? No thanks.I am thinking that it would be like insurance for the bad driver who cannot get regular insurance. Sort of minimal coverage that handles the basics but no fringe coverage. No inducement to drop good coverage if you can afford it.

Fishpicker
06-02-2007, 03:13 AM
from another thread:

Before we grant any kind of amnesty to immigrants we need an effective extradition treaty with Mexico. ATM, only the US honors our current extradition treaty. If someone (without regards to race) commits murder here in the states, they can cross the border and go on the lamb. As a matter of policy, Mexico will not extradite suspects that might face capital punishment. Mexico usually won't extradite suspects that face life imprisonment without waivers that grant immunity from that particular punishment.

We need an extradition treaty that addresses information sharing. I'm strongly opposed to a NAFTA superhighway but, I think an Information Network Technology superhighway would be great for both countries. We should lay fiber-optic cable instead of roads. If we invest any money into Mexico I hope it would go toward improving governmental record keeping (and helping them them establish/maintain electronic databases)

Border security and intelligence agencies in the US need access to criminal records of all Mexican nationals migrating to the US. We must exercise some discretion in who we allow to become guest workers/citizens. The US is not obligated to take on traffickers of Humans and Narcotics.


1st - we need a real border wall not a virtual fence. I agree that building a fence is useless. How about a federal public works project to erect a wall?

2nd -amnesty is out of the question. the only fair way to do this is to grant visas at a greater rate. Lets step up in processing a backlog of Mexican visa applications. 400K a year seems reasonable (up from 80K) we should reward the people who tried to enter legally.

3rd - A guest worker program is a great idea but lets limit it to people who speak English (I know this is un-PC) to facilitate immersion of the hispanics into our culture. (ok)

4th - Illegals applying for amnesty will be given a SS# but must work under that number for a minimum of 10 years to be eligible for any benefits. (I'm kind of indifferent on this one)

5th - we need med reform of some kind. Ideally we should try to make emergency health care available to everyone. We should never turn illegals away because that could be the start of an epidemic.

6th - End the automatic citizenship for children born to illegals (again here I break with the PC rules) yep

7th - see 2nd

8th - No welfare unless you are a citizen or a legal resident for at least 5 years. yep

9th - Posse Commitas has aught to do with Border security. its a national border. if you defend the border, the defense of the border falls under the category of national defense.

10th - Give Mexico 10 million Linux Legacy PCs (1 pc per 10 people)
Or we could give them $ for the factories to build the PCs themselves. Dell can produce a box running Ubuntu Linux for $140. There are many flavors of linux that can display Spanish. A copy of Linux for dummies (in spanish) would cost about $10 in bulk

it sounds like a lot of pesos but $15 billion is small change compared to the 2-3 trillion that the newest amnesty bill is expected to cost.

Logical
06-02-2007, 03:29 AM
1st - we need a real border wall not a virtual fence. I agree that building a fence is useless. How about a federal public works project to erect a wall?

Fence/Wall it won't be a significant help IMO and a trememdous waste of money

2nd -amnesty is out of the question. the only fair way to do this is to grant visas at a greater rate. Lets step up in processing a backlog of Mexican visa applications. 400K a year seems reasonable (up from 80K) we should reward the people who tried to enter legally.

Unless you can tell me how to deport 12 to 20 million people who don't want to be found I don't see this as a good starting position.

3rd - A guest worker program is a great idea but lets limit it to people who speak English (I know this is un-PC) to facilitate immersion of the hispanics into our culture. (ok)

4th - Illegals applying for amnesty will be given a SS# but must work under that number for a minimum of 10 years to be eligible for any benefits. (I'm kind of indifferent on this one)

5th - we need med reform of some kind. Ideally we should try to make emergency health care available to everyone. We should never turn illegals away because that could be the start of an epidemic.

Sorry we just don't agree on this one.

6th - End the automatic citizenship for children born to illegals (again here I break with the PC rules) yep

7th - see 2nd

8th - No welfare unless you are a citizen or a legal resident for at least 5 years. yep

9th - Posse Commitas has aught to do with Border security. its a national border. if you defend the border, the defense of the border falls under the category of national defense.

10th - Give Mexico 10 million Linux Legacy PCs (1 pc per 10 people)
Or we could give them $ for the factories to build the PCs themselves. Dell can produce a box running Ubuntu Linux for $140. There are many flavors of linux that can display Spanish. A copy of Linux for dummies (in spanish) would cost about $10 in bulk

it sounds like a lot of pesos but $15 billion is small change compared to the 2-3 trillion that the newest amnesty bill is expected to cost.

Interesting concept, not sure it really would be a break through in a society that has not moved to the state where tech sector work contributes much.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 04:16 AM
I posted this in response to a question by Isaac in another thread, but it offers my view on the subject:

I'm opposed to the current amnesty bill, as is.

FTR, I favor of securing borders first (not a total, physical wall--but rather through selective "walls" and increase surveillance and monitoring,) I favor tremendous increases in both policing employers who hire illegals as well as
agents to enforce those laws, and I favor a gradual but incentive-laden road to citizenship for those currently in the country (with benchmarks to be achieved over a number of years.)

Finally, I'd favor both most favored nation trade status for Mexico and perhaps even increased immigration quotas, coupled with a revision of the jus sanguinas provision of U.S. citizenship laws--as a strategy to stop continued future illegal immigration. This is what should have been done in 1986 the last time we dealt with this whole thing in a serious way, and I suspect we wouldn't be where we are today.

CHIEF4EVER
06-02-2007, 05:51 AM
1st - Any fence is a waste of money, but 370 miles of fence on a 2000+ mile border is a total waste and just silly.

I disagree that a barrier along our ENTIRE southern border is a bad thing but agree that 370 miles is a joke.

2nd - I am in favor of amnesty but lets call it that and make the screening process allow for more than 24 hours.

I am absolutely against amnesty. You don't reward lawbreakers. Employers need to be punished with DRACONIAN penalties for hiring illegals.

3rd - A guest worker program is a great idea but lets limit it to people who speak English (I know this is un-PC) to facilitate immersion of the hispanics into our culture.

Agree totally. It pisses me off when people who are anti amnesty are called racists. We are NOT racists. We know immigrants are needed and I don't personally care which country they originate from... just be willing to assimilate into our culture and learn our language.

4th - Illegals applying for amnesty will be given a SS# but must work under that number for a minimum of 10 years to be eligible for any benefits.

THAT plan I would agree with. If you don't want to be deported or go to jail, you must pay taxes and you are not eligible for any sort of social benefits including EIC for 10 years.

5th - Emergency room care is for emergency patients, you don't have insurance you are not getting free care any longer unless it is really an emergency case. Triage to determine eligibility, no insurance, no recourse.

Great point Jim. I agree.

6th - End the automatic citizenship for children born to illegals (again here I break with the PC rules)

Again, I agree 100%. :clap:

7th - We need to make it easier to immigrate legally, we have a rapidly retiring work force and frankly we will need the workers very soon.

That I also agree with.

8th - No welfare unless you are a citizen or a legal resident for at least 5 years.

Agree 100%.

9th - Bring the troops home and set them up along our borders guarding the borders (not a violation of Posse Commitas IMO as they are guarding against invaders).

You know what Jim, I actually am starting to agree with the bring the troops home position. If the Iraqi government won't get their shit together and pass the laws necessary to get their own people behind them and end the sectarian violence, then I say f*ck them. We aren't their free police department. I would be glad to pay taxes for stationing troops along our southern border. Protecting our borders is one of the primary functions of the Federal Government.

10th - Give Mexico most favored nation trading status to facilitate growth in their economy. If their economy improves then less people will want to immigrate.

They already have it Jim. We need to pressure them to quit f*cking their citizens over which makes them want to come here. Mexico is one of the most corrupt governments in this hemisphere.

Those are my ideas, what do you think?

I think most of your ideas were well thought out and I agree with most of them. :clap:

patteeu
06-02-2007, 10:05 AM
I won't go item by item down your list, but generally I find your approach pretty reasonable. I differ a little bit on how effective/useful a wall might be, and of course I differ on the idea of bringing troops home from the war before we've finished the job, but otherwise I like most of your proposals, particularly the part about favoring English speakers.

I *really* think you would find a lot to like in Newt Gingrich's "Securing our Borders and Preserving American Civilization (http://www.winningthefuture.com/backpage.asp?art=2647)" proposal.

BucEyedPea
06-02-2007, 11:15 AM
9th - Posse Commitas has aught to do with Border security. its a national border. if you defend the border, the defense of the border falls under the category of national defense.

Posse Comitatus is pretty much gone, buried in a bill last fall. Despite all 50 governors protesting this.


6th - End the automatic citizenship for children born to illegals (again here I break with the PC rules) yep

Folks did you know Ron Paul is currently introducing such legislation for this?

Make your calls to your congressman and back him up.
Get others to. Don’t just be part of the chattering classes.



Maybe I missed it but Gringrich’s plan, per the link provided, does not address one big lure for illegals—welfare. Instead he introduces more bureaucracy to teach them how to assimilate? Of course Gringrich did vote for welfare for them. That’s missing in Mr. Peso’s points as well. Besides, his wanting WWIII will just take attention off the problem.

Logical
06-02-2007, 04:54 PM
...

I disagree that a barrier along our ENTIRE southern border is a bad thing but agree that 370 miles is a joke.


Just curious how long do you think it would take to build a 2000 mile wall in somewhat mountainous terrain?

I am absolutely against amnesty. You don't reward lawbreakers. Employers need to be punished with DRACONIAN penalties for hiring illegals.


I agree with draconian penalties on employers, but being realistic that at best is only going to get businesses that are midsize to large. There are just too many small businesses and individual employers for the government to prosecute them all.

They already have it Jim. We need to pressure them to quit f*cking their citizens over which makes them want to come here. Mexico is one of the most corrupt governments in this hemisphere.

I did not know that. I agree they have one of the most corrupt governments in the world not just the hemisphere. I really wish I had an idea for how we help solve that problem.

Those are my ideas, what do you think?

It is not suprising to me that we agree on so much, I have only responded to the ones where you had different ideas or disagreement.

Logical
06-02-2007, 05:21 PM
I posted this in response to a question by Isaac in another thread, but it offers my view on the subject:

I'm opposed to the current amnesty bill, as is.

FTR, I favor of securing borders first (not a total, physical wall--but rather through selective "walls" and increase surveillance and monitoring,) I favor tremendous increases in both policing employers who hire illegals as well as
agents to enforce those laws, and I favor a gradual but incentive-laden road to citizenship for those currently in the country (with benchmarks to be achieved over a number of years.)

Finally, I'd favor both most favored nation trade status for Mexico and perhaps even increased immigration quotas, coupled with a revision of the jus sanguinas provision of U.S. citizenship laws--as a strategy to stop continued future illegal immigration. This is what should have been done in 1986 the last time we dealt with this whole thing in a serious way, and I suspect we wouldn't be where we are today.

I don't think there are too many citizens who support this poorly thought out immigration bill. I really don't think we are that far apart.

Logical
06-02-2007, 05:25 PM
I won't go item by item down your list, but generally I find your approach pretty reasonable. I differ a little bit on how effective/useful a wall might be, and of course I differ on the idea of bringing troops home from the war before we've finished the job, but otherwise I like most of your proposals, particularly the part about favoring English speakers.

I *really* think you would find a lot to like in Newt Gingrich's "Securing our Borders and Preserving American Civilization (http://www.winningthefuture.com/backpage.asp?art=2647)" proposal.

There is a lot to like in his proposal. Too bad Newt was driven from Congress.

Slick32
06-02-2007, 05:53 PM
If you want to read a professional column then you can pass on this thread. This thread is to express my thoughts and discuss them with my Planet brethren.

1st - Any fence is a waste of money, but 370 miles of fence on a 2000+ mile border is a total waste and just silly.

I would agree there, if you need to fence it off it has to be complete. In either case it would be a waste of money.


2nd - I am in favor of amnesty but lets call it that and make the screening process allow for more than 24 hours.

I don't agree fully here, but something has to be done. This isn't a problem that has arisen in the past few years so I don't see the solution being quick.

3rd - A guest worker program is a great idea but lets limit it to people who speak English (I know this is un-PC) to facilitate immersion of the hispanics into our culture.

agree

4th - Illegals applying for amnesty will be given a SS# but must work under that number for a minimum of 10 years to be eligible for any benefits.

agree

5th - Emergency room care is for emergency patients, you don't have insurance you are not getting free care any longer unless it is really an emergency case. Triage to determine eligibility, no insurance, no recourse.

agree in principle

6th - End the automatic citizenship for children born to illegals (again here I break with the PC rules)

agree

7th - We need to make it easier to immigrate legally, we have a rapidly retiring work force and frankly we will need the workers very soon.

agree to a point. What do you do with people from other countries that want to immigrate? Do they still have to abide by the current laws and delays? Even across the board is the only fair way to do it, but then you end up with the possibility of another burden on our SS system.

8th - No welfare unless you are a citizen or a legal resident for at least 5 years.

agree in principle, time frame might be extended

9th - Bring the troops home and set them up along our borders guarding the borders (not a violation of Posse Commitas IMO as they are guarding against invaders).

At the moment I don't see this as an option. Down the road possibly

10th - Give Mexico most favored nation trading status to facilitate growth in their economy. If their economy improves then less people will want to immigrate.

Mexico currently has manufacturing facilities that are owned and operated by U.S. companies. Their rate of pay is minimal compared to the wages of Americans doing those same jobs in the U.S. One example might be in the automotive industry where at one time there were two levels of UAW contracts paying the assembler $26.00 an hour for long time employees and a new contract amount of $16.00 per hour for recent hires. The same items were manufactured in Mexico at the sister plant and the top wage was $3.50 for the assemblers. What impact would #10 have on the rate of pay for those in Mexico? Would they have to raise the wage to our minimum to entice those in Mexico to want to stay there? I'm not sure #10 is workable as most would see it and as pointed out by others it is already a most favored nation.

Those are my ideas, what do you think?

patteeu
06-02-2007, 07:34 PM
There is a lot to like in his proposal. Too bad Newt was driven from Congress.

You don't have to be in Congress to have ideas that can make a difference.

Slick32
06-02-2007, 08:02 PM
You don't have to be in Congress to have ideas that can make a difference.

How do you get those ideas to make a difference?

Logical
06-02-2007, 08:33 PM
You don't have to be in Congress to have ideas that can make a difference.

I agree and he still has influence with his party. He needs to use it wisely. A run for the WH will hurt him.

patteeu
06-02-2007, 08:51 PM
How do you get those ideas to make a difference?

Persuasion.

Logical
06-03-2007, 12:02 AM
Persuasion.Contacts in high places does not harm his chances either.

ClevelandBronco
06-03-2007, 12:27 AM
Hey, Logical, regarding your Point #9:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3921865&postcount=55

Logical
06-03-2007, 12:39 AM
Hey, Logical, regarding your Point #9:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3921865&postcount=55


Still don't see the relevance of your question.

ClevelandBronco
06-03-2007, 12:50 AM
From your original post in this thread:

"9th - Bring the troops home and set them up along our borders guarding the borders (not a violation of Posse Commitas IMO as they are guarding against invaders".

-----

Then, from a debate from about a month ago (link above, we were talking about my idea that 12 million illegal aliens had already invaded...):

Me: "Are you willing to "give up your life" against this successful and ongoing invasion?"

You: "I will say until infinity I do not consider it an invasion. That is your bias not mine."

-----

So who are you saying are the "invaders" in your Point #9 in this post? It must not be the illegal aliens you address in all your other points. You said just a month ago that you'd say "until infinity" that the illegal aliens aren't invaders.

That was my bias.

Logical
06-03-2007, 01:00 AM
From your original post in this thread:

"9th - Bring the troops home and set them up along our borders guarding the borders (not a violation of Posse Commitas IMO as they are guarding against invaders".

-----

Then, from a debate from about a month ago (link above, we were talking about my idea that 12 million illegal aliens had already invaded...):

Me: "Are you willing to "give up your life" against this successful and ongoing invasion?"

You: "I will say until infinity I do not consider it an invasion. That is your bias not mine."

-----

So who are you saying are the "invaders" in your Point #9 in this post? It must not be the illegal aliens you address in all your other points. You said just a month ago that you'd say "until infinity" that the illegal aliens aren't invaders.

That was my bias.

I can see your confusion or mine. If it context. In the other thread I took your meaning like armed invaders because you asked if I was willing to give up my life. In this thread I am merely saying our troops have the right to turn back people who do not have the right to cross our borders. There is no discussion of them killling anyone.

ClevelandBronco
06-03-2007, 01:11 AM
I can see your confusion or mine. If it context. In the other thread I took your meaning like armed invaders because you asked if I was willing to give up my life. In this thread I am merely saying our troops have the right to turn back people who do not have the right to cross our borders. There is no discussion of them killling anyone.

Oh, please. Go read the thread again. We were clearly and specifically discussing the 12 million illegal aliens who have already crossed our borders. Our debate that night had nothing to do with a horde of 12 million armed Mexicans invaders. That's really a pitiful cover.

Just own your words, man.

I figured you'd simply come back with a post saying something like, "Oops."

ClevelandBronco
06-03-2007, 01:29 AM
Our debate started with this exchange:

Me: "Mexico and central America have already invaded the U.S. and we've all done little to protect her.

What are you willing to do right now, Logical?"

You: "Personally I don't have a problem. I think we need to change our standards to make it easier for them to immigrate but they would be documented then."

That exchange can be found on this page: http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=161739&page=3&pp=15

-----

Wait a minute, Logical. Now I'm supposed to believe that we were debating "chang(ing) our standards" for what? A 12 million strong armed invasion force that was going to cross our border with better documentation?

That's what you're trying to sell? That we only misunderstood each other?

Please, Logical. Just post your "Oops." I didn't really want to call you out on this thing. It's a petty concession on your part at most.

I'm not even asking you to say you were wrong. I'm just asking you to admit that you've changed your mind. And if you haven't changed your mind, you've just changed your terminology on this one small point.

"Oops."

Say it.

Saaay it.

Logical
06-03-2007, 01:46 AM
Our debate started with this exchange:

Me: "Mexico and central America have already invaded the U.S. and we've all done little to protect her.

What are you willing to do right now, Logical?"

You: "Personally I don't have a problem. I think we need to change our standards to make it easier for them to immigrate but they would be documented then."

That exchange can be found on this page: http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=161739&page=3&pp=15

-----

Wait a minute, Logical. Now I'm supposed to believe that we were debating "chang(ing) our standards" for what? A 12 million strong armed invasion force that was going to cross our border with better documentation?

That's what you're trying to sell? That we only misunderstood each other?

Please, Logical. Just post your "Oops." I didn't really want to call you out on this thing. It's a petty concession on your part at most.

I'm not even asking you to say you were wrong. I'm just asking you to admit that you've changed your mind. And if you haven't changed your mind, you've just changed your terminology on this one small point.

"Oops."

Say it.

Saaay it.So you are denying you said this:
Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco
I'll ask it again until you answer your own damn question: Are you willing to "give up your life" against this successful and ongoing invasion?

Logical
06-03-2007, 01:49 AM
I am also not being inconsistent since your examples are about those already in the country and I have said the following in regards to them.

2nd - I am in favor of amnesty but lets call it that and make the screening process allow for more than 24 hours.

3rd - A guest worker program is a great idea but lets limit it to people who speak English (I know this is un-PC) to facilitate immersion of the hispanics into our culture.

4th - Illegals applying for amnesty will be given a SS# but must work under that number for a minimum of 10 years to be eligible for any benefits.

ClevelandBronco
06-03-2007, 01:59 AM
So you are denying you said this:

Nope. I'm not denying that at all. What I'm denying is what you're trying to say tonight.

The willingness to die to stop invasion was the premise of the original post in that thread. But our specific debate started when I expanded the question to include whether you'd be willing to die to stop the continuing invasion that has already delivered 12 million illegals on our soil.

You can't change history, Logical. You said you were unwilling to call it an invasion a month ago, but in this thread you call it just that: an invasion.

Oops.

ClevelandBronco
06-03-2007, 02:00 AM
I will say until infinity I do not consider it an invasion.

Logical
06-03-2007, 02:02 AM
Nope. I'm not denying that at all. What I'm denying is what you're trying to say tonight.

The willingness to die to stop invasion was the premise of the original post in that thread. But our specific debate started when I expanded the question to include whether you'd be willing to die to stop the continuing invasion that has already delivered 12 million illegals on our soil.

You can't change history, Logical. You said you were unwilling to call it an invasion a month ago, but in this thread you call it just that: an invasion.

Oops.You called the 12-20 million already here an invastion. I still disagree with that.

ClevelandBronco
06-03-2007, 02:05 AM
You called the 12-20 million already here an invastion. I still disagree with that.

No, Logical. You already said you were arguing that you thought I was saying they were an armed invasion force.

Just try "Oops."

ClevelandBronco
06-03-2007, 02:09 AM
You called the 12-20 million already here an invastion. I still disagree with that.

Maybe you mean that the first 12-20 million weren't an invasion, but the next few million across the border will constitute an invasion?

ClevelandBronco
06-03-2007, 02:09 AM
Just try "Oops."

Logical
06-03-2007, 02:09 AM
No, Logical. You already said you were arguing that you thought I was saying they were an armed invasion force.

Just try "Oops."You are trying to rewrite history. No Oops is needed. If it helps I understand your confusion.

Logical
06-03-2007, 02:12 AM
Maybe you mean that the first 12-20 million weren't an invasion, but the next few million across the border will constitute an invasion?The ones already here can no longer be considered an invasion. Anyone still attempting to cross the border can still be considered as a potential invader.

ClevelandBronco
06-03-2007, 02:12 AM
You are trying to rewrite history. No Oops is needed. If it helps I understand your confusion.

I've never known you to lie before. Good night. Let's not bother debating again.

Logical
06-03-2007, 02:18 AM
I've never known you to lie before. Good night. Let's not bother debating again.

Don't feel I am lying, I honestly feel you are not seeing the distinctions I am trying to explain patiently. If it makes you feel better I will concede your point just to make you happy. I don't agree with you but it is not worth spoiling the good debates we have had in the past.

htismaqe
06-03-2007, 06:02 AM
5th - Emergency room care is for emergency patients, you don't have insurance you are not getting free care any longer unless it is really an emergency case. Triage to determine eligibility, no insurance, no recourse.

I talked about this a couple of months ago, this is an issue that goes well beyond illegal immigrants.

Fruit Ninja
06-03-2007, 09:26 AM
On number 3, if you limit it to those who speak english only, who the hell is going to pick the veggies and the fruits? This i am curious on. My neighbors are labor contracters and as a kid they gave me a job to work out in the fields so i have witnessed this first hand. There isnt any damn way your going to get anyone else to do the labor they are.

trndobrd
06-03-2007, 10:48 AM
Number 10 has already been discussed as far as MFN, but getting the Mexican economy moving in the right direction is the only long term solution to the issue.

I can't get on board with #9. The purpose of the military is to fight and win wars. That takes a lot of training. Sitting on border check point for 6 months out of the year performing law enforcement functions would decrease readiness and our military capability. Training opportunities, perhaps providing logistics support, on the border should be utilized, but DOD should not be responsible for the mission.

go bowe
06-03-2007, 12:16 PM
i think some of these things may run afoul of the constitution...


i'm not really up to date on the subject of immigration law, but i think equal protection covers all persons within the u.s.a., not just citizens...

i really don't know for sure without having done a little research, but i'm too tired to do it just now...

go bowe
06-03-2007, 12:53 PM
fwiw, section one of the XIV amendment reads All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. born in america = citizen

due process and equal protection apply to any "person", not just citizens...

i'm not that familiar with the nuances of current immigration law, but i'm pretty sure that once they are here, they are "persons" entitled to due process and equal protection, depending on how the supremes have/will interpret the XIV amendment as far as things like being entitled to welfare, food stamps, or other public benefits whether or not they are are illegal immigrants...

DaneMcCloud
06-03-2007, 12:56 PM
I think it's pretty well thought out but I disagree with #7. It's very difficult to immigrate to the US right now and I feel it should stay that way. It took my wife's parents over 17 years to immigrate legally from the Philippines. If you shortened the period or made it easier to immigrate to the US, we'd be absolutely flooded with people trying to get into the country.

With housing costs being so expensive in the major cities (NYC, LA, SF, Miami), where would all of these immigrants live? There would be an enormous burden on the government to house and shelter them.

Logical
06-03-2007, 08:49 PM
On number 3, if you limit it to those who speak english only, who the hell is going to pick the veggies and the fruits? This i am curious on. My neighbors are labor contracters and as a kid they gave me a job to work out in the fields so i have witnessed this first hand. There isnt any damn way your going to get anyone else to do the labor they are.

LOL I know this as well, but this is my concession to the angry masses.

Logical
06-03-2007, 08:51 PM
Number 10 has already been discussed as far as MFN, but getting the Mexican economy moving in the right direction is the only long term solution to the issue.

I can't get on board with #9. The purpose of the military is to fight and win wars. That takes a lot of training. Sitting on border check point for 6 months out of the year performing law enforcement functions would decrease readiness and our military capability. Training opportunities, perhaps providing logistics support, on the border should be utilized, but DOD should not be responsible for the mission.

Not sure how it is going to decrease readiness from what I have discussed with former military that were in the peace time service.

Logical
06-03-2007, 09:08 PM
fwiw, section one of the XIV amendment reads born in america = citizen

due process and equal protection apply to any "person", not just citizens...

i'm not that familiar with the nuances of current immigration law, but i'm pretty sure that once they are here, they are "persons" entitled to due process and equal protection, depending on how the supremes have/will interpret the XIV amendment as far as things like being entitled to welfare, food stamps, or other public benefits whether or not they are are illegal immigrants...

I realize that we would have to change the Constitution for that change.