Jan
29
2013

Yeah, I probably should create an immigration open thread.

Have at it, folks. I personally am in full ‘plague on both their houses’ mode at this moment – but don’t mind me. Just don’t insult each other and everything will be fine.

22 Comments

  • Spegen says:

    despite the desdire of many, it would be impossible to deport 11 million people. The bad economy has done some of that already. We do need tougher penalties on illegals that comit crime. Unfortunately, unless the GOP can find a way to appeal to Hispanics, it will destroy the party in many states.

    • acat says:

      Simplicity itself, Spegen.
      .
      I propose to immediately double the fines, at the State level, levied against companies employing illegals.
      .
      10% of the total fine (i.e. 20% of the “new” part) shall be payable to a tipster. The State shall pay some seed money to set up a tip line or tip web site.
      .
      State gets additional revenue, whistleblowers (a sometimes-protected class of the Left, eh?) get to rat people out, and if *enough* of ‘em get ratted on to prove it has teeth, companies will *self*-enforce eVerify with NO Fed action required. (and no way to stop it)
      .
      No income == the “honest labor” ones go home and we’re left with MS-13, which flips border enforcement and illegals as a *law enforcement* issue back into vogue.
      .
      Mew

      • DemosthenesVW says:

        So, your proposal is to pay people to squeal on their neighbors and/or co-workers. Yup. That’s going to end well. No potential for government mixups and horribly misconceived practical jokes/revenge plots that have the potential to ruin someone’s life…
        .
        Here’s my stance on illegal immigration. I don’t like it. I think it should, in fact, be criminal. And the moment somebody gives me a practical plan for how we’re going to move over 10 million people south of the Rio Grande, I’ll listen.
        .
        Seriously. Are there enough train cars in the country to move roughly one of every thirty people that are currently inside the American borders, in a relatively speedy fashion, without violating basic human rights and/or evoking comparisons to Nazis? What will Mexico do when we suddenly dump ten million people over the border, not all of whom are even from Mexico? Do we keep the kids that were born here and ship the parents back, or do we blatantly defy a Supreme Court decision and deport people whom the law currently regards as legal American citizens because their parents did something bad?
        .
        If anyone can answer those questions (and others) in what I consider a reasonably satisfactory way, fine. Until that day arrives, I say shut the border and let ‘em stay. But no path to citizenship. No vote. *Perhaps* a renewable green card after a certain period of time as an illegal resident, if they haven’t caused any trouble. And if they’re willing to pay a significant fine. If that’s amnesty, so be it, because as far as I can see, that’s the best possible way to deal with the situation.

        • acat says:

          I see. Make it unnecessarily difficult and demand that others play by your rules.
          .
          Get used to disappointment.
          .
          I’ve offered a perfectly straightforward approach. It works just fine in many, many other circumstances. Just ask anyone who’s ever been on the receiving end of a Microsoft (erm.. B.S.A.) audit…
          .
          And that’s the real point. The “magnet” isn’t education or health care, it’s jobs. … and if companies are afraid of fines, they *will* self-police .. the “magnet” will switch off, and you won’t have to do a {copulating} thing .. they’ll go away on their own, to where it’s easier to find work.
          .
          Mew

        • acat says:

          I should point out one teeny tiny little detail.
          .
          All those “false reports” you’re pre-bitching about? Those would be “crimes” (making a false statement to authorities) as well as potentially slander, no?
          .
          In other words – the falsely accused have recourse… and you’re deliberately throwing mud in the water.
          .
          Come back when you’ve got better material.
          .
          Mew

          • Moe_Lane says:

            A clarification, before this goes further: there are two people who get to determine who gets to stick around, and who does not. I am one, and Neil is the other (he is, after all, the guy who keeps the hamsters running in their wheels).

          • acat says:

            I’m certainly aware of that, Moe. I’m surprised you’ve let me hang around as long as you have…
            .
            Mew

          • DemosthenesVW says:

            No worries, Moe. This will stay light.
            .
            I haven’t demanded anything, acat. I’m giving you the most reasonable path to a solution that I can see. I have no doubt it won’t be adopted. That’s because liberals want full-on amnesty, and you want to do something that’s impossible. Again, if you can’t tell me how we actually relocate over ten million people…and you haven’t…and I’m guessing you can’t…then I’m gonna think your proposal is stillborn. And kinda silly.
            .
            And no, before you say anything else, your solution will not work. For starters, jobs are only one part of the equation (albeit an important one). Would you also encourage people to tattle on landlords who rent to illegals? Apartment owners in south Texas are gonna love you, boy howdy, when their complexes are only half full and they’re stuck paying full property tax. Would you encourage people to tattle on churches that provide aid and comfort to everyone who comes to their door, regardless of citizenship? I think you’ll have to, if you truly want these people to find no harbor. And that, my friend, would be a direct government interference with a religious duty to help those who are in need. Not a very conservative policy, I think.
            .
            But let’s leave all those issues aside for the moment. Getting people to deport themselves when they can’t find jobs because the government is providing financial incentives for company tattletales — well, that probably will take care of some of the problem. It will drive the rest further underground, though…and as long as there’s even an underground market for illegal immigrant labor, the border will keep getting crossed. That’s basic economics 101, and it will result in a problem of smaller scope (perhaps), but more deeply rooted. Your material is looking a little more threadbare than mine, I think.
            .
            Granted, that’s just my opinion. But then again, I think the first duty of a conservative is to recognize reality. Like, for example, the reality that problems in the open are easier to solve than ones driven underground. Or, another example (to tackle your last post), that just because something is a CRIME won’t stop short-sighted or malicious people from doing it. You would take that line if I were proposing radical restrictions on gun ownership, I’m positive of it. As you should. But the line works in more than one situation, you see. And it works against you here.
            .
            Woof

          • acat says:

            I see, Demos. You want it your way, anything that *isn’t* your way is automatically both not conservative and not possible.
            .
            Further, your analysis of the results are .. foolish. Those apartment complex owners in south Texas may be pissed, but the parents of legal kids who want to go to good schools or use an emergency room won’t be.
            .
            You seem really hung up on “rat on”. Guess what, Demos .. if someone’s breaking this *particular* law, they’re stealing from you, eh?
            .
            Your tax dollars are keeping those hospitals and schools going.
            .
            Your tax dollars are covering the extra cops and EMTs and fire crews.
            .
            Your tax dollars are creating an oppressed minority who – with the magnet turned off – will leave *on their own!*
            .
            I have told you how to solve the problem, Demos .. let ‘em leave the same way they got here! Simplicity!
            .
            That you can’t or won’t see it is .. telling.
            .
            Mew

          • DemosthenesVW says:

            Given that you seem to love paraphrasing me incorrectly, and then responding to the straw men you fashion, I don’t think that continuing to bash my head against this particular wall will be in any way productive. I just wish I actually could have gotten you to see all the things your analysis ignores. Sad, that.
            .
            Oh, well. Somehow I’ll survive.

          • acat says:

            Quitting the field is a time-honored tradition, Demos.
            .
            I will point out that I did address your point in my reply to Spegen, above.
            .
            “No income == the “honest labor” ones go home and we’re left with MS-13, which flips border enforcement and illegals as a *law enforcement* issue back into vogue.”.
            .
            As you say, one part of being a conservative is to recognize reality. The reality is, self-deportation worked in Alabama and Arizona.
            .
            Another reality is your demand for answers on details doesn’t matter .. neither of us is going to be making the rules.
            .
            The broad sweep of the Rubio/McCain plan doesn’t address any of your “details”, other than “they can all stay and move to the front of the visa line” .. so nominally we’re on the same side here… Rubio/McCain sucks.
            .
            Mew

  • acat says:

    Marco Rubio is dead to me.
    .
    Mew

    • tnfriendofcoal101368 says:

      I still doubt Harry Reid forces his big labor dependent for cash caucus to actually vote yeah without the assurance that the House will vote it down. All Rubio/Graham/McCain are doing is giving the Dems the chance to demogogue the Tea Party for “killing the compromise”. RGM are showing the keen political instincts of Todd Akin or Mike Bloomberg.

      • acat says:

        As McCain, Graham, Akin, and Bloomberg are also dead to me, yeah, Rubio is fitting right in.
        .
        It’s a *bonehead* play from someone who, if he were as good as everyone said, ought to know better.
        .
        Mew

  • Free-range Oyster says:

    My position is the same as it has been for years: you can have open borders, or you can have a welfare state. You cannot maintain both. Personally, I’m fine with open borders, no handouts, and liberalized weapon and self-defense laws. Let come who will, reward those that work, and let the troublemakers (Zetas, MS-13, etc.) destroy themselves on the immovable rock of an armed populace. On the other hand, I recognize that there is not a snowball’s chance of that becoming reality in my lifetime.

    • acat says:

      I offer a caveat to your last sentence, Oyster.
      .
      It’s entirely possible .. but it would take a civil war… and very good healthcare.
      .
      Mew

  • LiberExMachina says:

    Let’s see if the open thread is dead yet (and I’ll pitch my impossible solution).
    A good portion of the reason amnesty did not work in the 80′s (and will not work here and now) is that we are treating a symptom (illegal immigration), not the disease (the utter and complete dysfunction of the Mexican government). A situation where the only obtainable hopes for success for the typical Mexican citizen are to hop the border or join one of the drug gangs is an appalling one. We simply would not have near the illegal immigration issue we have now than we would if Mexico was ran as competently as, say, Canadia. So, any immigration policy on our end that does not urge the federales down South to get their acts together (by, say, connecting future foreign aid to Mexico instituting economic freedom policies) is an incomplete one. Of course, this will never happen ’cause it’s racist to have expectations of competence for “minorities”.
    Secondly, the border needs a proper wall (10′ high fence, 10′ deep concrete trench, 10′ high fence arranged such that one has a 20′ drop over the first fence and a 20′ climb to get over the other [or, conversely, whatever Mexico has on it's Southern border to keep out Central Americans]). Make real contributions to the wall a part of the “fine” Rubio et al are talking about ($X plus 6 months working on the wall). Of course, this will never happen ’cause it reeks of indentured servitude.
    Thirdly, we need to re-evaluate Kennedy’s quota system for legal immigration. Every other country bases their immigration policy on skills needed, not on country of origin. It is ludicrous that we take on 12 million low-skill workers (which is what Rubio’s plan probably entails in practice) and send back all of these hard science majors from our universities once they graduate. Of course, this will never happen (see 1).

    • acat says:

      I have a suggestion.
      .
      The U.S. government will purchase, from the Mexican government, the States of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahulia, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas.
      .
      All residents of those States shall become U.S. citizens. Our “southern border” shall then be a good bit further south, all the factories and whatnot in those States shall be subject to EPA regulations, and .. it’ll add quite a lot of beachfront for development.
      .
      Maybe not?
      .
      Mew

      • LiberExMachina says:

        A couple of reasons that screams bad idea:
        1) Would the aforementioned drug gangs move on South or would they keep their operations where they are at? We would be dropping a lot of money to buy ourselves into another shooting war…
        2) Would you really like to see another 14 Democrat/Socialists Senators and our metrics for Sen majority move to 57 and 76 (filibuster proof)? We have a hard enough time getting conservatism to come out of the Senate. Adding 7 guaranteed blues states will make it even move difficult.
        3) What would the cost/benefit analysis of the purchase say? I cannot image Mexico would sell us that much land/people/infrastructure in such a way that we could ever make a profit…

  • tnfriendofcoal101368 says:

    Question I have is can Menendez use the new law prohibiting employers to hire illegal aliens as an excuse to stiff his underage Dominican hookers?

    • LiberExMachina says:

      When we employes the services of his underage Dominican hookers in the Dominican Republic (on another person’s dime), they are not illegal immigrants, so, no.

  • Doc Holliday says:

    **** I posted this before, but in the wrong thread.

    I want to be clear about my views on the “immigration deform” debate. The gang of 8 has spoken, and I will take this opportunity to speak.

    If the Republicans think they will do anything to increase their vote tallies with the hispanic population by making illegals legal, they are as stupid and irrelevant as the left says.

    Explain to me how when Republicans are crushed by the lefty latino vote, that it makes sense to make 11 million illegal hispanics legal?

    And if you say, “well, it is the right thing to do”, then follow up that comment with logic and facts. Why exactly is it the right thing to do to make law breakers legal? Why not say since people smoke pot, that is now legal? Why not say people speed all the time so that should be legal? Why not say being drunk and disorderly is worth of amnesty because it happens all the time? If one crime deserves “amnesty”, then why not others?

    And if you say it is different because we are talking about people blah blah blah. Then why does every country on earth that has control of its borders prosecute and return illegals? Why is coming to America a human right, when it is not a right in Mexico, Germany, or New Zealand? Are we to become the only civilized nation on earth that does not control immigration?

    And again, what exactly do Republicans think they can achieve? We have been defeated in several national elections. Who in their right mind thinks millions more illegals turned legal will bring us back to the good ol days?

    So many pointy heads say we need to change with the times, but they are the same losers that gave us Romney, Reince Priebus, et al. No, I say if we are going to have an amnesty, let’s open it up. Let’s have a tax amnesty, a drug amnesty, a gambling amnesty. Why limit the next amnesty to illegal aliens, should not citizens get a piece of this freebie?

    So that is all I am going to say on this for now. I think the Republicans are acting out of fear; they are hoping to placate the masses because they have no real strategy. They are so afraid that they are willing to give up the whole game on the chance that some of the placated group will pity them.

    Look, I care about people, but I also understand realpolitik. We have a bloated welfare state that will soon implode. Putting 11 million more on the dole will only make the implosion worse. Republicans can never out liberal the Democrats, and the sooner they realize this the better off they will be.
    that is my piece.
    Doc

    Oh yeah, one last thing. Rush made some really good points today. So I want to make an additional point here, using some of his ideas. If illegals were coming here, learning English, working hard, paying their taxes, and waving American flags, this entire discussion would be pointless. It is not immigration we fear, whether that immigration is legal or not. The problem is crime, the problem is a group of people who could care less about America. The problem is that there is a group ready and willing to support the Democrat idea of a world without the USA, without the Constitution.

    Whoever called the cops on some guy working hard, paying taxes, and improving the morals of his community? No, the problem is the Democrats want an underclass that feeds off their government largesse.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com