Skip to comments.Immigrants Face Loss of Licenses in ID Crackdown
Posted on 08/18/2004 9:20:22 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Good. Then we agree that the US needs to dramatically increase the number of legal immigrants to meet the demand for workers.
Funny, US citizens can buy insurance too, but it's no good down in Mexico. Gotta buy "special" Mexican insurance.
Wow. You're a real douchebag.
Hey, I think you're finally starting to get it! Reward those foreigners who obey our laws by coming to the United States legally. Punish those foreigners who violate our laws by illegally coming here, or who don't leave when their visas expire. Most Americans aren't opposed to foreigners coming to the United States to live and work. Americans just want these foreigners to respect our laws by coming to the United States legally and then obey our laws while they're living here. Under no circumstances should the United States reward those foreigners who violate our laws, which amnesty would do.
Billions. Not millions.
Yes --- billions. Every citizen of the third world wants in on the vast safety net programs we've got --- if working doesn't work out for them here --- then it's a check from the government. It's also so much easier to let your own country go down the tubes and then expect you can just move to the USA.
We don't really need all that many workers --- for one we've decided to export manufacturing jobs --- we certainly don't need to import factory workers. We wouldn't need to import teachers and nurses if we weren't importing millions of people.Our machines have replaced the need for so much cheap labor.
The USA already has the world's fastest growing population due to immigration and the most legal immigrantion of any country.
In the last 70 years the population of the U.S. has roughly doubled. When do you think the government should get serious about immigration, when we have a population of almost 600,000,000 in 2075, at our current rate of population growth since the 1930s, or do you think we need to hit one billion?
Let me know if you want on or off my New York ping list.
It's quite frightening that this moron is teaching at West Point. She does understand that terrorists use fake names and IDs, right?
One thing we all ought to agree on is that the level of permitted illegal immigration should be as near to zero as possible and the level of legal immigration should be sufficient to meet our national needs.
What should the level of legal immigration be? I don't know the answer, but I am certain it should not be zero, as claimed by the more extreme elements of the Constitutional Party, nor should it be unlimited, as claimed by the more extreme elements of the open borders elitists.
As a conservative, I will concede that no one has a right to a certain level of income (i.e, $25,000 for a high school graduate, $35,000 for a 4 year degree, $50,000 for a master's degree, etc.). But the flip side of that is nobody ought to have the right to hire a job at the lowest level of wage someone will illegally immigrate for. Don't like mowing your lawn? Does the willingness to spend $10 and the willingness of an illegal alien to do it for $10 while the remainder of his living expenses are shoved on Jane and Joe taxpayer make it right? I don't think so, when there are legal aliens or citizens willing to do it for, say, $20.
Do we need a realistic level of legal immigration? I think so, though I can't say exactly what that level should be. I can say that those wanting to immigrate to the United States far outnumber those which are needed in the United States, so we need to establish some reasonable criteria-- willingness to learn English, appreciate American ideals and support yourself and your dependents should be minimum qualifications. Those who clear that hurdle should be further screened to bring in those who have needed and marketable skills and training, not just those who are willing to displace native and already here legal immigrants because they are willing to do it cheaper.
Too many of our young are unwilling to train for demanding careers in things like computer programming or health services because they realistically fear employers with their insatiable desire for cheaper labor will prefer to hire someone from abroad. Is it a wonder with the detached mentality of our elite from the common American that so many of our best and brightest no longer aspire to become engineers, programmers or doctors but instead aspire to become trial lawyers and corporate titans aspiring to milk the wealth of America while paying the wages of Bangladesh? There needs to be some sense of shared fate such as we as a country had after 9-11, during World War II and other times of national crisis. We cannot continue on a path of forcing the dwindling middle class to chose between pillaging or being pillaged.
Thank God! In a few decades millions and million of baby boomers will die. Fortunately America has lots of jobs and lots of land to attract workers. What a great country we live in.
Even though Canada, and England, and France, and Germany all have free healthcare, the people of the world want to come to America.
I think it is sad that so many people think this is such a bad thing, that they want to erect an electrified 20 ft reinforced fence around the land of the free. You would think that today was the first time in our history that wave after wave of immigrants came to our shores. It is not.
For the first 100 years of America, there were no immigration barriers. I see no rhyme or reason to our current immigration quotas. I see no reason to keep anyone out of America except those who would commit acts of terrorism. I do not fear the 10 million Mexican illegals who work and support their families.
My great grand parents came to America in the early 1900's without the ability to speak English. They gathered in communities of Polish families who also spoke little or no English, but their children were taught in our schools and they learned how to speak and work and function in America.
Most Americans today share a similar history. Sadly many PaleoCons think the golden days of America are gone and America should be closed off to the people of the world. I vehemently disagree.
I also wanted to say thank you for a well written and well thought out post.
I spent nearly 5 minutes trying to find a map of undeveloped land in the USA, but I failed. I'm pretty sure I posted it for you in the past neverdem. The US has lots and lots of land and resources. I do not know what our optimum population is but we are no where near it today. As mankind improves the way it uses resources the optimum population will increase further. 1 Billion sounds about right for the amount of land and resources we have today. In 50 years as new technologies increase energy production and construction capabilities that number may double. I hope this answers your question.
Many of our hinterlands are depopulating, large urban areas are already congested and/or blighted, surrounded by boring, expansive suburbs, of which many of them don't have enough water. Importing more bodies sounds like just the ticket. Definitely, that's the ticket!
I wouldn't suggest putting more people in heavely populated areas like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Only PaleoCons can't get beyond the heavily populated cities to see the real America.
Well, there is a dramatic shift afoot in urban fortunes, weakening the clout of the biggest cities while spreading power and influence to scores of smaller centers, nowhere more markedly than here in the United States.
The nation's urban hierarchy is flattening out. What used to take place almost entirely in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago or San Francisco -- whether in high finance, advertising or marketing -- is now happening more and more in unlikely locales such as Omaha, Des Moines, Fargo, N.D., and Columbus, Ohio.
"Technology now gives each town the same global footprint," says Rich Nespola, a native New Yorker and president of TMNG, a communications consulting firm with headquarters in suburban Kansas City, Kan. "People can work where they are comfortable and where it's most profitable."
This is good news for America's cities -- and for America. For many cities in the South and Midwest, spreading the wealth could signal the dawn of an era of renewed urban development, a new cosmopolitanism and growing cultural, technological and economic influence. For the country, it means a more vibrant, heterogeneous landscape, more living choices, a livelier cultural and social panorama -- let's face it, a nation that's more vital and more fun.
End of excerpt...
I bet you complained when the whips and buggy industry collapsed.
Reagan was a democrat until 1962. In 1964 Reagan made the decision to run for Governor Of California in 1966.
There was just one problem. The far right which controls the primary elections were sure to brand Reagan as a RINO and he could not get the nomination.
After all Reagan suported FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ. Thatis beyond RINO that is pure leftists. REagan and the Union he headed made big donations to the DNC and Democratic candidates at all levels.
With no Republicans wanting to get close to Goldwater in 1964, it was decided that Reagan would ask Goldwater to let him speak at the Republican National Convention. Goldwater jumped at the chance of having a RINO speak for him on natioal TV.
So Reagan did speak for Goldwater and did a great job.. The media reacted by painting Reagan as rock ribbed conservative. But Reagan was just trying to blunt his RINO image enought to get the 66 nomination for Governor.
I covered the 1980 Reagan campaign. In every stump speech Reagan said he was the only candidate for president who had been elected president of a labor union 3 times. In every speach Reagan said he was a Roosevelt Democrat and had not changed any of his views...only his party.
Regean did not repeal one welfare program or cut government spending. Government spending doubled under his administration. Reagan did build up the military in the FDR and HST tradtion.
Reagan's economic policy was a copy of JFK's economic policy. It was the same policies followed by Roosevelt, HST, and JFK. Reagan said it over and over he was just doing what JFK had done in 1961. Was JFK a Democrat? Think So!!!
A man who patterned his policies after FDR and JFK is not a conservative.
You only prove how the media fools the suckers. Reagan never cut government programs. But he doubled government spending. He was not a conservative. He was what the California right feared. Reagan was a RINO.. And he got he right wing to support him.
Increasing govenrment spending and economic stimulus were and are Democratic programs.. Reagan was the ultimate RINO.. He managed to get conservative support.. Or more accurately the media got Reagan conservative support.
One speech for Goldwater and the nations bigest RINO became a Conservative in the media's eyes... and yours. But Reagan never changed a single view.
I think it is sickening to see zealots who have their heads so far up their ass they can only talk sh*t.
Buy a toothbrush g-gal.
Breaking into my home is a crime. Cleaning toilets and picking crops are not. Except in the eyes of the PaleoCons.
I got no idea what that has to do with Dubya bending to the will of the American people, but hey FITZ keep on posting.
As I have posted again and again...the PaleoCons have no trouble with American born leeches sucking at the teat of government...it's just those wetback leeches that are the problem.
Try again half baked.
Your turn skinhead.
Not seeing any "facts" here Gary. Got sumthin to back up your opinion.
You smell bad, your momma dresses you funny, and you don't love Jesus.
Sure -- workers who commit felony document fraud and whose employers break every labor law yet both are rewarded for their crimes --- I bet you never provided your cheap servants any health insurance benefits but figure the government can just raise taxes to do that for you. Socialism --- but you make more money than an honest employer who follows the law. Greed --- the love of money is the root of all evil and people will destroy their country for the love of money. You hire illegal labor --- quick profits for yourself is your real reason to support unlimited illegal immigration.
If you have such animosity towards money, why do you whine about paying taxes to buy healthcare for your fellow man?
I believe the words I wrote have hit a nerve for you FITZ. You are completely discombobulated. You're all over the place. Either I'm a greedy Capitalist or I'm a Socailist. You can't have it both ways.
My motivations are transparent to anyone willing to read my posts. I like cheap labor because I like $1 double cheeseburgers at McDonalds, and I like a clean bathroom in my office. The Mexicans are perfectly willing to work these jobs for low pay. They appreciate the work, and I am happy they are getting the same opportunity that my great grand parents got. If people like yourself had been in control in the 1900's I would not live in America. Most likely my grandparents would have been rounded up and sent to Nazi concentration camps in the 1930's for a shower. The Mexican people are not blood thirsty killers bent on destroying this nation. They are children of God who yearn for a better life for their families.
The PaleoCons are the greedy ones. They want to keep others away from America's freedom. Shame on the Paleos.
Foreigners are more than welcome to come to the United States. All that Americans are asking is for them to come here legally. I don't think that is asking too much.
Asked what they think is a desirable number of legal immigrants per year, most Americans (76%) would prefer immigration be kept below current levels (i.e., they say they would like to see less than one million per year admitted).
In fact, a majority (58%) would prefer fewer than 300,000 enter per year.
Opinions vary somewhat by age, with older Americans taking a harder line against legal immigration; in fact, one in four of those age 65+ (25%) would prefer to see no legal immigrants enter per year, whereas only one in twenty (5%) of those 18-24 have the same view.
Your tedious chearleading for unfettered immigration conveniently ignores all the social costs and security risks that current immigration policies generate. If you could show me some articles that effectively refute Heather MacDonald's scholarship I would really appreciate it.
Here are some more links to Heather MacDonald.
Yes it seems you can have it both ways --- Capitalist because you make high profits for your cheap labor, Socialist because that's how you believe your cheap labor needs to be supported. These people couldn't work for you if they had to pay their own health care and education --- but since you feel that is the responsibility of the suckers -- the taxpayers, you believe in the socialization of those.
They do the same thing in Mexico --- they enjoy an endless amount of very cheap labor --- but the top 10% is doing extremely well --- the only thing is it has caught up with them so now they need to get rid of their surplus of cheap labor.
I'm not a Socialist for one -- and I should not have to pay so that you can surround yourself with cheap servants. I have heard families of those run out of Mexico during the Revolution --- when Pancho Villa's guys burned down their mansions --- life was so so difficult for them when they came here as refugees, they had never had to cook their own food or clean their homes and they weren't able to bring their lowly servants --- the servants were riding with Pancho Villa. It was so very very sad for these elites.
So the lack of licenses act somewhat as a restriction on further movement, further encroachment on jobs. Once they get licensed, all bets are off, and we'll see a renewed explosion in arrivals.
Why is the headline not "Illegals face deportation in Crackdown?" Taking away their licenses is nice but why are they in this country when they have no right?
I'm not sure what we would have to do to force the Guvmint to start doing it's job, but maybe constant and persistant calls to the INS would help?
Anyone have any better suggestions?
Mow your own *&^ lawn. And tell your ole lady to swab her own *&^ toilet.
Or, pay a legal wage to a legal worker to get the job done, if you can't bring yourself to wait on yourself.
he US allows about 50,000 legal Mexican workers in the US. We have over 10 MILLION illegals in the US...mostly from central America. Do the math. The US has the jobs. Business wants the workers. Only the knuckle dragging PaleoCons who fear they will be excluded from their life long career in toilet cleaning are stoping Dubya from giving "illegal" workers with long histories of paying Social Security the chance to continue paying taxes.
The Businesses can use the labor that's already here in a Legal Status.
If the people south of the border wish to come here and work legally, then I have no problem with them being here legally. It's the Illegal ones that should be tracked down and immediately deported. Furthermore the businesses that knowingly use Illegal Aliens as laborers should be heavily fined in order to get the point across.
I myself cannot go into a business and work without what amounts to an exhaustive background check these days. If I don't "measure up" or give them my SSN, then I can't work. They use this information to track people who are behind on Child Support, this is their rationale. But an illegal can come here, work for less than minimum wage and nobody says a thing about it? Where is the fairness in that?
There are legal remedies for these people, why don't they use it?
But Reagan never changed a single view.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're caling Reagan a leftist, aren't you?
If we have some many jobs going unfilled why are still people on welfare?
THE southern border needs to be closed, we have way to many people coming from mexico ,and the other poor nations south of our border, we cannot sustain this type of growth unless we want to change thye whole make up of AMERICA, we have been invaded by third world nations, enough is enough, mexico has way more than their fair share of the pie, and the more we let in the more we keep the status quo in mexico t,he men of mexico might want to stay and improve things down there like economics and living standards ,it will never change as long as we take all of their problems.
Are you employed outside your home cleaning toilets?
There is a very practical couple of reasons why we simply cannot throw open our borders and simply let anyone from Mexico who wants to move here to do so:
I do not dispute your statement that the United States could support a theoretical population of one billion. If everyone were as industrious as, say, the Mormon pioneers who settled what were then barren deserets on the west side of the Rocky Mountains, the figure could even be theoretically higher.
The point, however, is we simply will not get there with no immigration controls in place.
Even the so-called Golden Era of immigration from circa 1840-1920 had restrictions. You've no doubt heard of Ellis Island which turned back those with communicable diseases, those with no visible means to support themselves or those with criminal histories or even criminal profiles deemed likely to lead to a life of dependence or criminality. Other ports of entry operated in similar fashion.
Admittedly, the bars to entry (particularly in the peak period of this era) were rather low, but aspiring immigrants were required to clear them nevertheless. I have examples in my own heritage which both contrast to and confirm your Polish community example.
My wife's family came from Italy, settled in Italian neighborhoods and spoke little English. But they insisted that their children be educated in English and that the language of adopted country be spoken as much as possible in the home. The town I live in has an AMS Club (Americanization Mutual Society) whose original purpose was to do exactly as the name implies for Italian immigrants. My father-in-law is still active in the Sons of Italy, though he understands little of the language and speaks even less and he is one generation removed from Italy. Can you say the same of even an appreciable minority of illegal immigrants from Mexico who have been here three generations or more? And were not even asking that they forget Spanish as my wife's familty was told to forget Italian.
My own family background could also give you a lesson or two in what happens when you have an idiotic immigration policy. By blood, I am more native American than white. While I do not count myself as a victim and know many native Americans (full-blooded) who do not either, much of the good of our culture was destroyed by immigrants who neither cared no took the time to appreciate our culture-- some aspects of which we're glad is gone (abandoning the elderly, slavery, paganism, etc.) and some of which should have been saved (community cooperation, variety of natural seeds, appreciation for a slower pace of life and the arts which flow therefrom). The percentage of military veterans is higher among the Native American population than any other.
Patriotism is a necessary ingredient to preserve a civilization and patriotism requires time and nuturing to take root. Immigration does not need to be halted, but it needs to be slowed to a pace which allows this necessary nuturing to take place.
I hope they deport the scumbags. Put them in hard labor for a few years for breaking our laws.
Meanwhile you see fit to ignore the concept of the rule of law. Some conservative you are.
This only partially true. Until 1880 only disease was criteria for turning an immigrant back from Ellis Island. In 1917 all an immigrant had to do was read a 40 word literacy test IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. Please tell me how the government had the resources and ability to do criminal background checks...even as late as 1940 if that helps. Maybe they had a REALLY big filing cabinet. Since the inspectors were inspecting about 40-50 immigrants and hour I'm sure that left lots of time for criminal background checks. Think about it.
Absolutely. The children of Mexican immigrants are learning English and American history in our schools.
Patriotism is a necessary ingredient to preserve a civilization and patriotism requires time and nuturing to take root.
Patriotism takes only one generation and often times less. My great grand parents got off the boat without the ability to speak English, but their son and my grandfather, only 17, lied about his age to join the navy and fight in the Pacific in WW2. My uncles fought and died in Korea and Vietnam and my brother fought in the Gulf War. Your family did the same. Today illegal immigrants are fighting in Iraq
And some have given their children .
Spc. Zeferino E. Colunga, 20, of Bellville, Texas, died on Aug. 6 at Homburg University Hospital in Germany. Colunga was initially evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital in Iraq on Aug. 4. He was then evacuated to Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center and later to Homburg hospital for further evaluation. He remained at Homburg until his death. His death was unrelated to the recent cases of pneumonia in Southwest Asia. Colunga was assigned to 4th Squadron, 2nd Armored Calvary Regiment, Fort Polk, La.
Colunga's father was deported back to Mexico four months after his death for being an illegal alien.
There are over 30,000 non-citizens in our military today. Some have been granted citizenship for their service posthumously.
I believe the vast majority of illegals come to America to find a better life for their families. I believe the current quota limitations on immigration leave these people little choice but to cross the border without permission. Too many heartless, and selfish Paleos equate that act with treason, terrorism, and identity theft. Their hyperbole leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
I know your trying to get a rise out of me but I just feel loathing about how powerless you must feel.
Bingo! Another member of the Cheap Labor Lobby!
And undoubtedly one of those whose political philosophy is "Privatize profits; socialize costs".
Better and better -- a semi-Canadian cheese-head with no personal knowledge of life along the Mexican border.