BORDER AGENTS RESENT POLITICIAN'S ZEAL FOR AMNESTY

[4Freedom]

Your whole hypothetical is based on the false premise that a farmer can only afford to pay $6.00 an hour.

Where do you get that number.

What is that assumption based upon?

[hchutch]

I admitted up front it is a hypothetical. The premise that the anti-immigration types REFUSE to admit is the fact that there IS a certain price an employer can afford to pay for labor, and it's often defined by the price he is able to charge for a finished product - ideally one that will allow him to not only meet all his expenses, but will also allow him to make a profit.

It does not matter if the finished product is a head of lettuce, a Chrysler automobile, or an air-to-air missile. Supply and demand play a big role in this.

[thepitts]

President Bush; Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat; House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Missouri Democrat; and the House Republican leadership all

Republican leadership?

[MissAmericanPie]

What about launching a write in Tancredo effort for 2004? You can pretty much guess what a Republican congress, senate, and Presidency is going to do just by looking back at the "Republican Revolution".

They will wrap their arms around Democrats and talk about "sharing power", give the rats plum committee assingments, there will be alot of talk about "bipartisinism", time to "lay aside old bitterness", time to "move forward", and we will hear about "Compassionate Conservatism" adnauseum while our sovereignty is damaged beyond repair, other than by civil war and revolution, (like that's going to happen).

The Democrats will continue to kick the Republicans teeth in, and the Republicans will say, "Yes Sir, thank you Sir, may I have more Sir?", and Trent Lott will come to the American People with another 40 lb, 400,000 page budget like Gingrich did and call it a victory, and RINO's will sing, "doot due due..doot ta da due..due..due..doot ta da...due due due...doot ta da duuue..".

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The Republican revolution of 1994 actually had some good points, and they succeeded in some of them like balancing the budget, lowering taxes, and most importantly keeping Clintoon to the center as opposed to the Kennedy far-left wing of the spectrum which is where he really wanted to go- for example gays in the military and socialized medicine.

Where the Republicans have failed miserably is in controlling immigration. They made a serious attempt at it in 1996, but RINO birdbrains like Spencer Abraham sabotaged it. Unless they do something about this issue and soon, we're going to be stuck with another liberal Congress for the next 40 years or longer because they will never control immigration. Why would they if those coming here will not only vote for them, but help solidify their hold on the electoral process for decades to come.

Writing in Tancredo may not be a bad idea if Bush refuses to understand what mass immigration policies, especially of the illegal kind are doing to the country, or the fact the vast majority of the people want something done about it. But handing control of Congress to the democrats will almost surely mean the end of even the slightest chance of getting reform on this issue, such as Gekas' bill in the House right now.

[4Freedom]

Yep, you're right about supply and demand just wrong about how that principle applies to illegal immigration.

Let's say that there are 100 landscaping companies in Chicago, Illinois and they're all paying their workers a living wage with health benefits an a retirement plan.

Now, along comes mister Bush who allows 50 new landscaping businesses to start up in Chicago using minimum wage illegal alien help.

They take away the original 100 companies' business by cutting price and cause all of the original workers to take a cut in pay, lose their benefits or lose their jobs.

The solution to that is to deport the illegal aliens and force the excess landscaping companies to close.

The solution is NOT to force the American Taxpayers to provide all of these workers free benefits.

If a company can't turn a profit bringing a product to market by paying a living wage and without resorting to using illegal alien labor they should go out of business.

"It does not matter if the finished product is a head of lettuce, a Chrysler automobile, or an air-to-air missile."

Yes, in this context, your last statement is now correct.

[grania]

The premise that the anti-immigration types REFUSE to admit is the fact that there IS a certain price an employer can afford to pay for labor, and it's often defined by the price he is able to charge for a finished product - ideally one that will allow him to not only meet all his expenses, but will also allow him to make a profit.

I have to disagree here. The farmer (or any employer) for that matter might have the advantage of cheaper labor, and it appeals in order to increase profit.

But think about it. That cheap labor needs subsidized housing, food, medical care, extra classes for his children in school. This laborer pays very low or no taxes. So, the farmer has to pay more taxes. Government has to provide workers, facilities, benefits for the family. The consumer is not only subsidizing the cheap labor with his taxes, there is a downward pressure on wages and full time jobs. So, instead of perhaps paying a little more for a product a consumer chooses to buy, he/she is forced to pay a tax, which is really subsidizing the producer who can now offer an unnatural wage that will not in reality sustain the worker. Taxes on everyone are thus subsidizing the producer's profit.

And at what cost? Neighborhood safety, housing costs, educational opportunities being sapped by the need to teach underachievers, declining medical care, pressure on the environment, the need to be asked what language you prefer, assaults on our culture and values have all been impacted.

Another huge issue is that if labor is not too easy and too cheap, innovations will occur to fill that gap. Good ol' American ingenuity has always gone a long way to solve these problems.

Another factor is the impact on other nations which should strive to build their economies and societies. If their most able, willing, and in many cases educated workers come to the US and other developed countries for jobs, how will they ever improve.

I really think that looking at how much an employer can save on wages and saying "ahaaa....this is good" doesn't look at the long range impact this has on our economy, culture, laws, environment, taxes, and safety.

[hchutch]

Your calls for a "living wage" sound just like those from the left-wingers in places like commondreams.org. Tell me, what do you define as a "living wage"?

Are you in favor of mandating a "living wage"?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The premise that the anti-immigration types REFUSE to admit...

For those of us who want something done about illegal immigration, does that make us an anti-immigration type? Is that what the position of the RNC is? Hope not, otherwise they're going to lose votes if it is.

[hchutch]

Look, I'm going to lay this out pretty clear:

I think the current immigration policies have screwed over American busiensses and willing Mexican day laborers in particular. I see the Gekas immigration reform bill, which cuts back LEGAL immigration, and I draw the conclusion that there is significant anti-immigration sentiment that focuses on illegal immigration, but is using it an an excuse to cut back on LEGAL immigration in the process.

I also think that there are appropriate measures that can be taken in the case of some illegal immigrants that are short of deportation. I think we have little, if anything, to fear from an honor student at a high school. That's a far cry from an al-Qaida terrorist or a drug smuggler, and it warrants a different response.

And for pointing this out and acting on that belief, folks like Spencer Abraham, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and myself are called RINOs and attacked? I have a serious problem with that.

[Poohbah]

If a company can't turn a profit bringing a product to market by paying a living wage and without resorting to using illegal alien labor they should go out of business.

"We can't be responsible for every undercapitalized business in America." -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, when asked about the burdens her proposed health care plan would place on small businesses.

Nice to see whose economic philosophy you follow.

[4Freedom]

If we can't get Tancredo to challenge Bush in the Republican primary, then a write-in campaign might be another option. He mentioned that many contributors from across the country have already asked him to run.

What is the name of that tune you have the Democrats singing?

[fogarty]

They need to step aside and let Texas ranchers take over. Any rancher worth his salt should be able to take down Mexicans at 500 yards.

Maybe when the illegal immigrants start dropping like flies (or more correctly, targets) we will see a decrease in border crossings.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

I think we have little, if anything, to fear from an honor student at a high school.

No I'm not calling you a rat or a RINO, but you do realize you are taking the same position as the liberal Denver Post and the democratic party on this issue do you not? The rank and file in the Republican party overwhelmingly want laws against illegal aliens enforced, it's not just me or those on this forum, but throughout the country. When you call us "anti-immigration types" that doesn't sit well either.

Sure the honor student is not a threat to national security I agree, but his presence here is illegal, and we can't pick and choose what laws we're going to enforce. If you want illegal immigration legalized, then why not lobby Congress to do that instead of overlooking laws that are on the books?

[4Freedom]

There's no need to mandate a living wage. Americans will decide what they'll work for. If a business can't pay it, they go out of business.

As you said, "supply and demand."

[Poohbah]

There's no need to mandate a living wage. Americans will decide what they'll work for.

And then they'll turn right around and demand cheap goods and services.

[4Freedom]

That's an apples to oranges comparison.

Hillary was talking about saddling the American small business with the costs of socialized medicine.

You and Chutch are talking about saddling the American Taxpayer with the costs of the social programs needed to subsidize illegal alien, slave laborers for businesses that should otherwise just be allowed to cut profits or go out of business.

That's more of Hillary's socialism.

[hchutch]

"Another factor is the impact on other nations which should strive to build their economies and societies. If their most able, willing, and in many cases educated workers come to the US and other developed countries for jobs, how will they ever improve."

If they are willing to come here and to help our country, why stop them? Why post a keep out sign?

The problem is not people who want to come here, the problem, ultimately, if the fact that there have been elements of the welfare state that need to be taken apart. The welfare state and the mentality it has been brreding and fostering does far more to harm our culture and public safety than immigration has ever done. We've had immigration in the past. Heck, we didn't even put quotas on immigration until we began restricting Chinese immigration in 1882. We only began the current quota system on a permanent basis in 1921 and 1924.

Immigrants have also brought innovation. Ever hear of Igor I. Sikorsky? He's the guy who INVENTED the helicopter - the company he founded still exists today and produces a lot of `em. Sikorsky was a Russian immigrant, he came here before we imposed the quotas and when we had what is derided by many here as an "open borders" policy that only excluded "idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons likely to become a public charge" or "polygamists, persons convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, and those suffering loathsome or contagious diseases" (this from the INS web site at http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/history/articles/oview.htm if you wish to take a look).

[Poohbah]

No, it isn't.

You demand a "living wage" (read: a high wage). You also demand cheap goods and services.

You remind me of the jackass who didn't want to take the "pay cut" to work as a computer programmer with my company...despite the fact that he had been unemployed for 18 months and getting ZERO pay during that time.

[4Freedom]

What are you talking about? How does someone demand cheap goods and services?

You call a landscaper. You ask for a quote. You pay it or mow your own lawn. Big deal.

Someone else will pay what the landscaper needs to charge or he goes out of business.

"Supply and demand."