Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)

[Rove!]

What's the end game here?

Turn Texas blue?

 

[jonessed]

I think it's classless and disgusting for people to protest in front of children and make them feel unwanted. Whatever your views on this issue and on illegal immigration in general, children are not villains; they are victims, and booing their arrival (which happened the last few days in California) is not what this country should be about.

I agree the kids are in an unfair spot. I also sympathize with the people who were upset with the illegal aliens being shipped into their town. They did what they felt they needed to.

If they are protesting illegal immigrants being bussed into their towns it makes sense to protest in a manner that stops the buses.

Protesting somewhere else doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[timschochet]

I think it's classless and disgusting for people to protest in front of children and make them feel unwanted. Whatever your views on this issue and on illegal immigration in general, children are not villains; they are victims, and booing their arrival (which happened the last few days in California) is not what this country should be about.

I agree the kids are in an unfair spot. I also sympathize with the people who were upset with the illegal aliens being shipped into their town. They did what they felt they needed to.

If they are protesting illegal immigrants being bussed into their towns it makes sense to protest in a manner that stops the buses.Protesting somewhere else doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

All right, I can't deny the logic of that, but I hate these children having to hear it. There are also unconfirmed reports, from the radio, of people yelling directly at the kids, stuff like "Go back home you ####### wetbacks, you're not wanted here!" etc. If that really happened there's no way to justify it.

 

[avoiding injuries]

There's also no way to justify the unconfirmed reports that the kids and moms were yelling back "#### you, Americans. Support us with your tax dollars!"

 

[jonessed]

I think it's classless and disgusting for people to protest in front of children and make them feel unwanted. Whatever your views on this issue and on illegal immigration in general, children are not villains; they are victims, and booing their arrival (which happened the last few days in California) is not what this country should be about.

I agree the kids are in an unfair spot. I also sympathize with the people who were upset with the illegal aliens being shipped into their town. They did what they felt they needed to.

If they are protesting illegal immigrants being bussed into their towns it makes sense to protest in a manner that stops the buses.Protesting somewhere else doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

All right, I can't deny the logic of that, but I hate these children having to hear it. There are also unconfirmed reports, from the radio, of people yelling directly at the kids, stuff like "Go back home you ####### wetbacks, you're not wanted here!" etc. If that really happened there's no way to justify it.

I've walked through dozens of protests. They aren't exactly bastions of good manners and etiquette. Pissed off people tend to lash out in rude and/or vulgar manners.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I think it's classless and disgusting for people to protest in front of children and make them feel unwanted. Whatever your views on this issue and on illegal immigration in general, children are not villains; they are victims, and booing their arrival (which happened the last few days in California) is not what this country should be about.

I agree the kids are in an unfair spot. I also sympathize with the people who were upset with the illegal aliens being shipped into their town. They did what they felt they needed to.

If they are protesting illegal immigrants being bussed into their towns it makes sense to protest in a manner that stops the buses.Protesting somewhere else doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

All right, I can't deny the logic of that, but I hate these children having to hear it. There are also unconfirmed reports, from the radio, of people yelling directly at the kids, stuff like "Go back home you ####### wetbacks, you're not wanted here!" etc. If that really happened there's no way to justify it.

well thank god those kids dont speak english

 

[chauncey]

Good point busted

 

[poopdawg]

I think it's classless and disgusting for people to protest in front of children and make them feel unwanted. Whatever your views on this issue and on illegal immigration in general, children are not villains; they are victims, and booing their arrival (which happened the last few days in California) is not what this country should be about.

they shouldn't be going to California. They should be going back where they came. Then we wouldn't have to worry about it, would we?

We won't agree on that, but either way, it's still wrong to protest in front of them and yell ugliness at them. The kids aren't to blame.

Well who is to blame then? Us? Or should it be the parents? You posted earlier that it SHOULD be the taxpayers responsibility. Are you ####### kidding me? Why? Why not the parents that are pumping out 6 kids they cannot/don't support? I pay a quarter of my paycheck in taxes and a good chunk goes to stuff I don't agree with. I'm tired of paying for bull####. It SHOULD be my responsibility? #### you #######. If I ever see you on the street, I will punch you in the brain. I'm sick of your liberal bull####. Your mentality is one of the reasons that this country is going down the ####ter.

 

[The Commish]

I think Timmy just got poopdawged

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think Timmy just got poopdawged

Tim never will learn when he needs to shut his pie hole.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think it's classless and disgusting for people to protest in front of children and make them feel unwanted. Whatever your views on this issue and on illegal immigration in general, children are not villains; they are victims, and booing their arrival (which happened the last few days in California) is not what this country should be about.

they shouldn't be going to California. They should be going back where they came. Then we wouldn't have to worry about it, would we?

We won't agree on that, but either way, it's still wrong to protest in front of them and yell ugliness at them. The kids aren't to blame.

Well who is to blame then? Us? Or should it be the parents? You posted earlier that it SHOULD be the taxpayers responsibility. Are you ####### kidding me? Why? Why not the parents that are pumping out 6 kids they cannot/don't support? I pay a quarter of my paycheck in taxes and a good chunk goes to stuff I don't agree with. I'm tired of paying for bull####. It SHOULD be my responsibility? #### you #######. If I ever see you on the street, I will punch you in the brain. I'm sick of your liberal bull####. Your mentality is one of the reasons that this country is going down the ####ter.

Does this mean that tim is off your Christmas card list, or am I reading too much into this?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Rich I tried to find common ground with you but we are just too far apart. You and Sarnoff and Strike want to change the law so that children born here to illegals aren't citizens, and I could never abide that. We're moving in opposite directions.

I'm very strongly pro-immigration and I think you and I generally agree on a lot of this, but birthright citizenship is a stupid policy that nobody would ever choose if we were starting from scratch.

In most cases, a child born to illegals ought to be granted citizenship, because the US is the only country he or she has ever known. No problem there. But granting citizenship to a child of French parents who just happens to be born while they're passing through the country (hypothetical) is indefensible.

 

[timschochet]

Rich I tried to find common ground with you but we are just too far apart. You and Sarnoff and Strike want to change the law so that children born here to illegals aren't citizens, and I could never abide that. We're moving in opposite directions.

I'm very strongly pro-immigration and I think you and I generally agree on a lot of this, but birthright citizenship is a stupid policy that nobody would ever choose if we were starting from scratch.

In most cases, a child born to illegals ought to be granted citizenship, because the US is the only country he or she has ever known. No problem there. But granting citizenship to a child of French parents who just happens to be born while they're passing through the country (hypothetical) is indefensible.

Not going to disagree with you, but I see that as the price we pay for something that overall makes a lot of sense and is a wonderful thing.

 

[timschochet]

Poopdawg, I'm sorry you feel the way you do, especially since you're apparently a fellow Steeler fan.

But can I just say that you're taking your anger out on the wrong guy? I'm just one dude on a message board, and my opinion on this issue is in the extreme minority. The guys you really should be pissed at are the politicians who claim they agree with you on this but refuse to carry through on their promises. They're the ones with the power to screw you over on this, not me.

 

[timschochet]

Oh and if you do punch me in the brain, please try not to miss and hit my neck instead. Don't like what I read about that.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Rich I tried to find common ground with you but we are just too far apart. You and Sarnoff and Strike want to change the law so that children born here to illegals aren't citizens, and I could never abide that. We're moving in opposite directions.

I'm very strongly pro-immigration and I think you and I generally agree on a lot of this, but birthright citizenship is a stupid policy that nobody would ever choose if we were starting from scratch.

In most cases, a child born to illegals ought to be granted citizenship, because the US is the only country he or she has ever known. No problem there. But granting citizenship to a child of French parents who just happens to be born while they're passing through the country (hypothetical) is indefensible.

Not going to disagree with you, but I see that as the price we pay for something that overall makes a lot of sense and is a wonderful thing.

i just dont see how letting people into the country in unregulated droves is financially feasible in the long run...so many people who come here send more than half the money they earn here back to their native country,taking money from here and not putting it back. Those are the one who work,the ones that dont just get aid that we working people pay for ...i get your passion ,its a romantic idea ,just not realistic .

 

[timschochet]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

 

[Slapdash]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

 

[RCon]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

Long story short, and poorly explained...

They do some work (economic benefit to U.S.), U.S. gives them green pieces of paper. They send green pieces of paper to another country. If those green pieces of paper aren't used to purchase anything here, the U.S. essentially got work for paper.

Personally, I don't buy it, but that's the theory.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

Long story short, and poorly explained...

They do some work (economic benefit to U.S.), U.S. gives them green pieces of paper. They send green pieces of paper to another country. If those green pieces of paper aren't used to purchase anything here, the U.S. essentially got work for paper.

Personally, I don't buy it, but that's the theory.

Perhaps we should levy a fine/tax on all outgoing remittances sent out of the country. Since we've been taxed to the hilt, let illegals know just what they'll experience when they become "instant citizens."

 

[timschochet]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

Long story short, and poorly explained...They do some work (economic benefit to U.S.), U.S. gives them green pieces of paper. They send green pieces of paper to another country. If those green pieces of paper aren't used to purchase anything here, the U.S. essentially got work for paper.

Personally, I don't buy it, but that's the theory.

That's half the explanation. The other half is those green papers being used to buy stuff overseas increases the value of our currency.

 

[The Commish]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

Long story short, and poorly explained...They do some work (economic benefit to U.S.), U.S. gives them green pieces of paper. They send green pieces of paper to another country. If those green pieces of paper aren't used to purchase anything here, the U.S. essentially got work for paper.

Personally, I don't buy it, but that's the theory.

That's half the explanation. The other half is those green papers being used to buy stuff overseas increases the value of our currency.

Can you show your work on this? Well, before you do that, do you believe global economics work the same now as they did even 15 years ago? If so, nevermind.

 

[urbanhack]

I think it's classless and disgusting for people to protest in front of children and make them feel unwanted. Whatever your views on this issue and on illegal immigration in general, children are not villains; they are victims, and booing their arrival (which happened the last few days in California) is not what this country should be about.

these people are ignorant scumbags and i hope they all burn in hell. ####### disgusting.

 

[timschochet]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

Long story short, and poorly explained...They do some work (economic benefit to U.S.), U.S. gives them green pieces of paper. They send green pieces of paper to another country. If those green pieces of paper aren't used to purchase anything here, the U.S. essentially got work for paper.

Personally, I don't buy it, but that's the theory.

That's half the explanation. The other half is those green papers being used to buy stuff overseas increases the value of our currency.

Can you show your work on this? Well, before you do that, do you believe global economics work the same now as they did even 15 years ago? If so, nevermind.

Maurile has done some stellar work on this. I'll try to find a link later when I have time.

 

[The Commish]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

Long story short, and poorly explained...They do some work (economic benefit to U.S.), U.S. gives them green pieces of paper. They send green pieces of paper to another country. If those green pieces of paper aren't used to purchase anything here, the U.S. essentially got work for paper.

Personally, I don't buy it, but that's the theory.

That's half the explanation. The other half is those green papers being used to buy stuff overseas increases the value of our currency.

Can you show your work on this? Well, before you do that, do you believe global economics work the same now as they did even 15 years ago? If so, nevermind.

Maurile has done some stellar work on this. I'll try to find a link later when I have time.

I didn't ask for Maurile's work....I asked for yours. Doesn't matter. Move on.

 

[timschochet]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

Long story short, and poorly explained...They do some work (economic benefit to U.S.), U.S. gives them green pieces of paper. They send green pieces of paper to another country. If those green pieces of paper aren't used to purchase anything here, the U.S. essentially got work for paper.

Personally, I don't buy it, but that's the theory.

That's half the explanation. The other half is those green papers being used to buy stuff overseas increases the value of our currency.

Can you show your work on this? Well, before you do that, do you believe global economics work the same now as they did even 15 years ago? If so, nevermind.

Maurile has done some stellar work on this. I'll try to find a link later when I have time.

I didn't ask for Maurile's work....I asked for yours. Doesn't matter. Move on.

Ah, so unless it comes from me personally it's invalid to you? I suppose that's a compliment, though certainly an absurd one which I don't deserve. I'mNot smart enough to figure out this stuff on my own. Until I read Maurile's argument here a few years back, I assumed that people who sent money to other countries was bad for us, like everyone else.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

Long story short, and poorly explained...They do some work (economic benefit to U.S.), U.S. gives them green pieces of paper. They send green pieces of paper to another country. If those green pieces of paper aren't used to purchase anything here, the U.S. essentially got work for paper.

Personally, I don't buy it, but that's the theory.

What do you mean you don't buy it?

 

[Mark Davis]

I've never understood why we elect to not simply secure our border. If we secure ours, Mexico will eventually have to secure theirs to the south or face the flood themselves. I have sympathy for many of these kids, but we simply can't take everyone because it's safer here or we have a better standard of living, at least for the time being.

 

[timschochet]

I've never understood why we elect to not simply secure our border. If we secure ours, Mexico will eventually have to secure theirs to the south or face the flood themselves. I have sympathy for many of these kids, but we simply can't take everyone because it's safer here or we have a better standard of living, at least for the time being.

First off, these kids have nothing to do with securing the border. They showed up AT the border; they did not attempt to cross it illegally.

Second, what do you specifically mean by "simply secure our border"? Are you calling, as Sarnoff is, for a wall? Or do you have something else in mind?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think it's classless and disgusting for people to protest in front of children and make them feel unwanted. Whatever your views on this issue and on illegal immigration in general, children are not villains; they are victims, and booing their arrival (which happened the last few days in California) is not what this country should be about.

they shouldn't be going to California. They should be going back where they came. Then we wouldn't have to worry about it, would we?

We won't agree on that, but either way, it's still wrong to protest in front of them and yell ugliness at them. The kids aren't to blame.

Well who is to blame then? Us? Or should it be the parents? You posted earlier that it SHOULD be the taxpayers responsibility. Are you ####### kidding me? Why? Why not the parents that are pumping out 6 kids they cannot/don't support? I pay a quarter of my paycheck in taxes and a good chunk goes to stuff I don't agree with. I'm tired of paying for bull####. It SHOULD be my responsibility? #### you #######. If I ever see you on the street, I will punch you in the brain. I'm sick of your liberal bull####. Your mentality is one of the reasons that this country is going down the ####ter.

Wow, aren't you an ignorant tool. Threatening people on the internet? What are you, 5'6 135 pounds?

 

[tommyGunZ]

How ####### embarrassing this is for those of us in SoCal. Idiots up in Murrieta should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[timschochet]

How ####### embarrassing this is for those of us in SoCal. Idiots up in Murrieta should be ashamed of themselves.

They've seen school programs cut every year, along with everything else, and the local politicians blame illegal immigrants, because they're an easy target, and nobody challenges it. It makes me sick but I can't blame the Sarnoffs of the world for thinking as they do. This is what they've been taught.

 

[Courtjester]

I've never understood why we elect to not simply secure our border. If we secure ours, Mexico will eventually have to secure theirs to the south or face the flood themselves. I have sympathy for many of these kids, but we simply can't take everyone because it's safer here or we have a better standard of living, at least for the time being.

First off, these kids have nothing to do with securing the border. They showed up AT the border; they did not attempt to cross it illegally.

Second, what do you specifically mean by "simply secure our border"? Are you calling, as Sarnoff is, for a wall? Or do you have something else in mind?

The bottom line is any immigration reform begins with securing the border and if that means a wall---that means a wall. If that means guard towers--that means guards. If that means by any means necessary--that's what it means.

Tim I think your heart is in the right place, but none of what you propose means anything if there is not an enforcement method. You can't say here is the speed limit, but people can drive whatever speed they want because they know there is no chance of a ticket. And that applies with what is happening here. We need to hang the "NO VACANCY" sign out and mean it.

Listen I don't agree with the president on a lot. I have made that clear in the past, but in the same token, the GOP doesn't exactly welcome me because I tend to be more central leaning in my beliefs (especially since I am pro-choice). But this current crisis is caused by Obama--there is no refuting this. We can argue until we are blue in the face about what ultimate immigration reform should look like, but the bottom line is people in Central American believe that they can get amnesty here. They may have believed that to a lesser extent before, but in the numbers that are being seen at the border currently, this surge is a direct result of Obama's use and willingness to use Executive Orders to advance his agenda.

We need to send them back now. Once the planes start flying back loaded down with children---parents will stop sending their kids.

It will just happen naturally. But instead we have a president who has created a crisis and now wants to exploit it for political gain instead of just sending them home.

It is going to ugly fast and I am guessing the protests we are seeing are only the tip of the iceberg of what is to come.

 

[[icon]]

SoCal residents offering shelter to the kids:

Timmay

Tgunz

:notes:

 

[timschochet]

I've never understood why we elect to not simply secure our border. If we secure ours, Mexico will eventually have to secure theirs to the south or face the flood themselves. I have sympathy for many of these kids, but we simply can't take everyone because it's safer here or we have a better standard of living, at least for the time being.

First off, these kids have nothing to do with securing the border. They showed up AT the border; they did not attempt to cross it illegally.

Second, what do you specifically mean by "simply secure our border"? Are you calling, as Sarnoff is, for a wall? Or do you have something else in mind?

The bottom line is any immigration reform begins with securing the border and if that means a wall---that means a wall. If that means guard towers--that means guards. If that means by any means necessary--that's what it means.

Tim I think your heart is in the right place, but none of what you propose means anything if there is not an enforcement method. You can't say here is the speed limit, but people can drive whatever speed they want because they know there is no chance of a ticket. And that applies with what is happening here. We need to hang the "NO VACANCY" sign out and mean it.

Listen I don't agree with the president on a lot. I have made that clear in the past, but in the same token, the GOP doesn't exactly welcome me because I tend to be more central leaning in my beliefs (especially since I am pro-choice). But this current crisis is caused by Obama--there is no refuting this. We can argue until we are blue in the face about what ultimate immigration reform should look like, but the bottom line is people in Central American believe that they can get amnesty here. They may have believed that to a lesser extent before, but in the numbers that are being seen at the border currently, this surge is a direct result of Obama's use and willingness to use Executive Orders to advance his agenda.

We need to send them back now. Once the planes start flying back loaded down with children---parents will stop sending their kids.

It will just happen naturally. But instead we have a president who has created a crisis and now wants to exploit it for political gain instead of just sending them home.

It is going to ugly fast and I am guessing the protests we are seeing are only the tip of the iceberg of what is to come.

Putting aside the main issue here (we disagree on that, we've argued it before, that's fine) I really don't think you're correct about Obama. I wish Obama was as open to illegal immigration as some conservatives try to paint him. But the truth is actually quite different: I think Obama has allocated more resources to the border than any previous President. And he is actually talking about issuing executive orders to do more to tighten up the border. (He is of course pushing for a path to citizenship for those illegals already here, but that has no bearing on the tightening of the border.)

I don't have time to check it just now, but I believe the numbers bear out that during the Obama years it is much more difficult to sneak into the United States than it was during the Bush years or frankly ever.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I've never understood why we elect to not simply secure our border. If we secure ours, Mexico will eventually have to secure theirs to the south or face the flood themselves. I have sympathy for many of these kids, but we simply can't take everyone because it's safer here or we have a better standard of living, at least for the time being.

First off, these kids have nothing to do with securing the border. They showed up AT the border; they did not attempt to cross it illegally.Second, what do you specifically mean by "simply secure our border"? Are you calling, as Sarnoff is, for a wall? Or do you have something else in mind?

The bottom line is any immigration reform begins with securing the border and if that means a wall---that means a wall. If that means guard towers--that means guards. If that means by any means necessary--that's what it means.Tim I think your heart is in the right place, but none of what you propose means anything if there is not an enforcement method. You can't say here is the speed limit, but people can drive whatever speed they want because they know there is no chance of a ticket. And that applies with what is happening here. We need to hang the "NO VACANCY" sign out and mean it.

Listen I don't agree with the president on a lot. I have made that clear in the past, but in the same token, the GOP doesn't exactly welcome me because I tend to be more central leaning in my beliefs (especially since I am pro-choice). But this current crisis is caused by Obama--there is no refuting this. We can argue until we are blue in the face about what ultimate immigration reform should look like, but the bottom line is people in Central American believe that they can get amnesty here. They may have believed that to a lesser extent before, but in the numbers that are being seen at the border currently, this surge is a direct result of Obama's use and willingness to use Executive Orders to advance his agenda.

We need to send them back now. Once the planes start flying back loaded down with children---parents will stop sending their kids.

It will just happen naturally. But instead we have a president who has created a crisis and now wants to exploit it for political gain instead of just sending them home.

It is going to ugly fast and I am guessing the protests we are seeing are only the tip of the iceberg of what is to come.

Congress' inability to pass immigration reform is President Obama's fault?

What an awful, awful post.

 

[timschochet]

OBAMA: Our message absolutely is don't send your children unaccompanied on trains or through a bunch of smugglers that is our direct message to the families in Central America. Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it they will get sent back.

As I noted in the other thread, I have become a bigger fan of Obama in recent years, but this is pretty shameful. I suppose I can't expect him to commit political suicide and say that he welcomes these children to stay, but he could avoid these "get tough" comments. Imagine the decision of those parents in Central America, sending their children away from them in order to have a better life. And for Obama to lecture them and warn them? Just makes me very sad.

 

[pizzatyme]

IIRC the Dems and Obama had a 2 year window to pass all the reforms and laws they wanted when they had the majority in both houses of congress. Or am I mistaken?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Props to Obama for this stance. We cannot babysit the entire world, for Christ's sake. Yes, I feel sorry for those children, but there is no good solution as far as they are concerned.

 

[chauncey]

I've never understood why we elect to not simply secure our border. If we secure ours, Mexico will eventually have to secure theirs to the south or face the flood themselves. I have sympathy for many of these kids, but we simply can't take everyone because it's safer here or we have a better standard of living, at least for the time being.

Politics. It isn't PC to secure the border plain and simple. There is also probably a disconnect between the reality of the border/illegal immigration situation that residents of 4 states see and what the other 46 states only hear about through the media/politicians. If anyone from the other 46 spent a year living near the border they may be more open minded to securing it.

 

[chauncey]

Obama/Napolitano pulled a Wire-esque juke the stats to make it seem as if the border was more secure than ever. Basically the BP had orders from DC to change their SOP and accounting methods of apprehensions to trend the overall numbers down for a period of time. This led nicely to a RIF/hiring freeze/pay reduction for the BP during all of the fiscal cliff nonsense last year. In reality the numbers may have dipped temporarily because of the recession, but overall drug/people smuggling is as strong as ever. There has just been a shift from CA/AZ/NM to south TX as the primary point of entry. (Which is making the news today)

 

[avoiding injuries]

There's a border fence in San Diego, right? From the little I've read about it, it seems to be successful. I guess it depends on your definition of success.

 

[greenroom]

You want to stop illegals from coming in, that is very easy to do. Start punishing those that hire the illegals, but neither party will do that since big business needs the illegals that will do work that US citizens will not do.

 

[jamny]

You want to stop illegals from coming in, that is very easy to do. Start punishing those that hire the illegals, but neither party will do that since big business needs the illegals that will do work that US citizens will not do.

Not even just the work that US citizens won't do, they do work that plenty of US citizens would do just at a much cheaper rate.

 

[Sabertooth]

You want to stop illegals from coming in, that is very easy to do. Start punishing those that hire the illegals, but neither party will do that since big business needs the illegals that will do work that US citizens will not do.

Not even just the work that US citizens won't do, they do work that plenty of US citizens would do just at a much cheaper rate.

This is the very essence of capitalism.

 

[MechEng]

I think it's classless and disgusting for people to protest in front of children and make them feel unwanted. Whatever your views on this issue and on illegal immigration in general, children are not villains; they are victims, and booing their arrival (which happened the last few days in California) is not what this country should be about.

I agree the kids are in an unfair spot. I also sympathize with the people who were upset with the illegal aliens being shipped into their town. They did what they felt they needed to.

If they are protesting illegal immigrants being bussed into their towns it makes sense to protest in a manner that stops the buses.Protesting somewhere else doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

All right, I can't deny the logic of that, but I hate these children having to hear it. There are also unconfirmed reports, from the radio, of people yelling directly at the kids, stuff like "Go back home you ####### wetbacks, you're not wanted here!" etc. If that really happened there's no way to justify it.

They can't speak English so it doesn't matter what you yell at them.

 

[MechEng]

Anyone else think that this distraction could allow terroist to cross the border?

 

[RCon]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

Long story short, and poorly explained...They do some work (economic benefit to U.S.), U.S. gives them green pieces of paper. They send green pieces of paper to another country. If those green pieces of paper aren't used to purchase anything here, the U.S. essentially got work for paper.

Personally, I don't buy it, but that's the theory.

What do you mean you don't buy it?

I mean, I don't buy the conclusion in the current global world. Those dollars can be used to buy oil on the world market, or converted to pesos/yen/pounds, or a thousand other things, all of which mean the U.S. isn't actually getting something (labor) for nothing (some green paper).

 

[RCon]

You want to stop illegals from coming in, that is very easy to do. Start punishing those that hire the illegals, but neither party will do that since big business needs the illegals that will do work that US citizens will not do.

Not even just the work that US citizens won't do, they do work that plenty of US citizens would do just at a much cheaper rate.

This is the very essence of capitalism.

It's illegal for businesses to pay less than minimum wage. It's not the essence of capitalism to allow different rules for different groups. That is, it's not a level playing field if illegals can accept $5/hour without government interference, but US citizens can only accept $8.25.

 

[The Commish]

Busted Knuckles, to address just one of your points, about when they send money back to their own country: as Maurile Trembilay has pointed out many times, this is actually an economic positive for the US.

How so?

Long story short, and poorly explained...They do some work (economic benefit to U.S.), U.S. gives them green pieces of paper. They send green pieces of paper to another country. If those green pieces of paper aren't used to purchase anything here, the U.S. essentially got work for paper.

Personally, I don't buy it, but that's the theory.

That's half the explanation. The other half is those green papers being used to buy stuff overseas increases the value of our currency.

Can you show your work on this? Well, before you do that, do you believe global economics work the same now as they did even 15 years ago? If so, nevermind.

Maurile has done some stellar work on this. I'll try to find a link later when I have time.

I didn't ask for Maurile's work....I asked for yours. Doesn't matter. Move on.

Ah, so unless it comes from me personally it's invalid to you? I suppose that's a compliment, though certainly an absurd one which I don't deserve. I'mNot smart enough to figure out this stuff on my own. Until I read Maurile's argument here a few years back, I assumed that people who sent money to other countries was bad for us, like everyone else.

No, it's not invalid. I've read Maurile's work. Parts I buy, others I don't. I was asking YOU for YOUR work because I wanted to hear YOUR work. I thought you had thoughts of your own on this subject. Learned that wasn't the case and decided to move on. Not really interested in you regurgitating other peoples' work.