January 29, 2013
— DrewM Language is very important in politics. The earliest stage of a political fight is often the fight to gain control of the terms used in the debate. Supporters of the bland sounding “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” really donÂ’t like it when opponents call their various schemes “amnesty”. Why? No one wants to be seen as rewarding criminal behavior even when thatÂ’s EXACTLY what they are doing. So supporters of amnesty will go to great lengths and intellectual contortions to make sure no one dares use that term.
Take a look at how Marco Rubio, one of the key figures in the most recent amnesty push, phrases the argument.
We have de facto amnesty right now
No we donÂ’t.
If we did, why are we going through this whole process in the first place? If we had de facto amnesty, we wouldnÂ’t hear about how hard it is for illegal immigrants to live in the shadows. If we had de facto amnesty, we wouldnÂ’t be deporting anyone. If we had de facto amnesty, there wouldnÂ’t be a thriving black market for illicit work documents and identity theft.
Amnesty supporters will tell you it can’t be amnesty because illegal immigrants will say there are "tough but fair" penalties for illegal immigrants such as paying a fine of some sort, have to pay back taxes and “go to the back of the line” behind those waiting to come here legally for permanent residency and citizenship.
The last bit is particularly deceitful. The “back of the line” language is designed to make it sound like a real penalty is being imposed on illegals. The reality according to amnesty supporter Chuck Schumer is they would get big rewards up front with no penalties of any sort.
"On day one of our bill, the people without status who are not criminals or security risks will be able to live and work here legally."
According to Rubio, the "penalties" will come years down the road when illegal aliens apply for green cards.
As for the path to citizenship, as Rubio explained when he rolled out his ideas a couple of weeks ago, the senators envision a temporary legal status and then the opportunity to obtain a green card, upon payment of back taxes, learn English, and a background check “among other requirements.” (Although there was no mention of Rubio’s suggestions for fines or community services is made.) The path to citizenship provisions also emphasize that none of the illegal immigrants could jump ahead of those who have legally been pursuing a green card.
In short...illegals will gain immediate legal status upon enactment of the law with no penalty until some unidentified time far off in the future. How is that not amnesty? Until we see the actual legislation, we don't even know if illegals will have to apply for a green card or citizenship. It's very possible whatever category of visa they get upon passage of the scheme will entitle them to stay for as long as they want.
Who is really punished by this system? People waiting to come here legally. The legal immigration system is already a mess but now weÂ’ll be dumping upwards of 11 million new people into the system. They will all have to be processed and have background checks done to claim their new status.
How is an overworked system going to handle that new workload without A- skimping on real checks and B- adding more delays to people who are playing by the rules (pdf)?
One of the supposed penalties illegals will have to pay is to prove they have been paying taxes all along or pay taxes owed.
How will that work?
The IRS is already strained by implementing new ObamaCare regulations but now they will have to process millions and millions of new returns? Will current tax payers see delays in returns or other services? Or will the checks on this condition be cursory and incomplete at best?
And if illegal immigrants have been working and paying taxes by definition they are using fraudulently obtained documents, often committing Identity Theft.
Illegal immigrants are not “undocumented.” They have fraudulent documents such as counterfeit Social Security cards, forged drivers licenses, fake “green cards,” and phony birth certificates. Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment....
Illegal immigration and high levels of identity theft go hand-in-hand. States with the most illegal immigration also have high levels of job-related identity theft. In Arizona, 33 percent or all identity theft is job-related (as opposed to identity theft motivated simply by profit). In Texas it is 27 percent; in New Mexico, 23 percent; in Colorado, 22 percent; California, 20 percent; and in Nevada, 16 percent. Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of illegal aliens in their total population are among the top 10 states in identity theft (Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, Nevada, New York, Georgia, and Colorado).
Will they be prosecuted for crimes that a citizen would? Of course not. But donÂ’t call it amnesty!
Like Obi-Wan Kenobi in the original Star Wars movie, amnesty supporters will waive their hand and say, “this isn’t amnesty” and hope the weak minded who oppose amnesty will just let them move along with their plans.
The first battle over amnesty is for the word “amnesty”. If those of us who oppose this policy lose this battle, we will undoubtedly lose the war.
Posted by: DrewM at
06:30 AM
| Comments (555)
Post contains 916 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Al at January 29, 2013 06:32 AM (V70Uh)
Posted by: RWC at January 29, 2013 06:33 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 29, 2013 06:34 AM (tmzN0)
That is what is different and worse than the last immigration reform attempt. At least the original one before the Z Visas.
Posted by: polynikes at January 29, 2013 06:34 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: RWC at January 29, 2013 06:34 AM (fWAjv)
This amnest applies to Canadians too, right? So I can go down, claim I'm from Canada and get a green card in a fictitious name?
I don't think I can fake an Australian accent.
Posted by: Invictus at January 29, 2013 06:35 AM (OQpzc)
They won't stop. This will end nothing. The protests and the complaining and the marches and the vilification of the h8ers on the right will all continue.
There are too many people making too much money and getting too much airtime due to this issue for them to ever allow it to be over.
See: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson
Posted by: wiserbud at January 29, 2013 06:35 AM (LmP4O)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 06:36 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: Schaeffer at January 29, 2013 06:36 AM (ZN0re)
A lot of them have real drivers licenses. What could go wrong?
http://cis.org/drivers-lisense-security-terrorists-back-door
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 06:36 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: ObamaDoesn'tCare at January 29, 2013 06:37 AM (e8kgV)
Heh..
Posted by: dananjcon at January 29, 2013 06:38 AM (jvd3N)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 06:38 AM (ZKzrr)
McCain: DHS Secretary to have final word on border security
OMG
Posted by: ObamaDoesn'tCare at January 29, 2013 06:38 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 06:38 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Fox2! at January 29, 2013 06:38 AM (1Qpmy)
Posted by: krakatoa at January 29, 2013 06:39 AM (q46t1)
Posted by: Pres**ent Barack “Unexpectedly” Obama at January 29, 2013 06:39 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: andycanuck at January 29, 2013 06:39 AM (ORGYc)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 06:39 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 29, 2013 06:39 AM (tmzN0)
(CNSNews.com) – The Department of Homeland Security is promoting welfare benefits for immigrants on its website WelcometoUSA.gov despite a law that seeks to prevent new immigrants from becoming dependent after entering the United States.
In spite of the law. Feds don't give a shit what the law says. Unless it is you breaking it.
Posted by: Invictus at January 29, 2013 06:40 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: joncelli at January 29, 2013 06:40 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Al at January 29, 2013 10:32 AM (V70Uh)
After amnesty, a constant drumbeat for citizenship will begin.
Posted by: slatz at January 29, 2013 06:40 AM (mE0Rl)
Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 29, 2013 06:40 AM (GVxQo)
Posted by: Mr. Fantastic at January 29, 2013 06:40 AM (2IgCi)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 29, 2013 06:40 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 06:40 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 29, 2013 06:41 AM (lWUBb)
Make them a self-impeachable offense.
Posted by: Pres**ent Barack “Unexpectedly” Obama at January 29, 2013 06:41 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Vic at January 29, 2013 06:41 AM (53z96)
It really is.
We have told them in the clearest way possible on at least 2 occasions when they tried to ram this down our throats that we do not want this and yet they persist.
It really is time to start getting uncivil!
Posted by: General Woundwort at January 29, 2013 06:41 AM (RrD4h)
Posted by: J. at January 29, 2013 06:41 AM (D5Jpp)
Posted by: RWC at January 29, 2013 06:41 AM (fWAjv)
It's much easier to fake after a fifth of this. http://tinyurl.com/pu7b7
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 29, 2013 06:41 AM (sbV1u)
Yes it is Amnesty.
And I'm beyond sick of this "living in the shadows" bullshit.
These people don't live in any shadows. They get drivers licenses, go to public schools, and commit a bunch of crimes.
Posted by: Jay at January 29, 2013 06:41 AM (3LaGb)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 29, 2013 06:41 AM (e0xKF)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 06:41 AM (wbmaj)
Juan Queeg Spilled the beans on CBS at most the "judgement on enforcement" falls on DHS' head....
so uh "yeah" amnesty mi amigo since Uncle Jan Neo already declared el border 'fine'....
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 06:42 AM (LRFds)
It's amnesty. Period. And, no, a blessing from our new, Magic Hispanic-American doesn't make it not one. (And I'm starting to regret my contributions to get this Tea Party candidate into office.)
It's an amnesty of millions of law-breaking illegal aliens. Period.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 29, 2013 06:42 AM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: Heralder at January 29, 2013 06:42 AM (+xmn4)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 06:43 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 29, 2013 06:43 AM (VtjlW)
We have all the negative aspects of amnesty right now, but none of the positive (residents living within the law, paying taxes, etc). So actually this statement is not that far from the truth as you make it seem.
I know people don't want to hear it, but Rubio is right. We aren't going to kick out 11 million people. That isn't a battle we are going to win, ever. We lost this battle when the people came into the country. It isn't about whether we lose now or not. We already lost. We need to clean up the current situation and move from here. Let's not let pride get in the way.
Now if you are disagreeing with Rubio's tactics here, then that is a different matter. But he is right that eventually these 11 million people need to become legal citizens.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 06:43 AM (kuRCh)
Posted by: EC at January 29, 2013 06:43 AM (GQ8sn)
We can't even manage to send them to those serving in the military.
Posted by: huerfano at January 29, 2013 06:44 AM (bAGA/)
It's very possible whatever category of visa they get upon passage of the scheme will entitle them to stay for as long as they want.
They already stay as long as they like. They get free health care at the emergency room as well
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 29, 2013 06:44 AM (R8hU8)
Blacks.
In Compton, CA, blacks are being run out of the area by the hispanic gangs. Unless they're hispanic black, hispanics don't like blacks and vise verse.
They're both struggling for the same demographic of jobs and hispanics are generally harder working (consciencious but don't like to take responsibility when working for someone else) with less visible attitude.
Obambi an equal opportunity aggravater; he's out to piss off everyone.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka 3 tooth) at January 29, 2013 06:44 AM (3E2th)
illegal immigrants are. Yes, hmmm.
Posted by: S M O D A at January 29, 2013 06:44 AM (trA4n)
I'm only half joking when I tell her just to skip renewing the tourist visa, go to Mexico and cross the Rio Grande.
Posted by: rabidsquirrel at January 29, 2013 06:45 AM (YQ4mh)
Fined for not having health insurance?
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 06:45 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Heralder at January 29, 2013 10:42 AM (+xmn4)
Every fucking person who played by the rules to try and get ahead is getting a major boning by the JEF and his band of cocksuckers.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 29, 2013 06:45 AM (lWUBb)
You should.
1) They're not terribly interested in citizenship in the first place
a) If they really want, they can vote anyway
b) Besides voting, they get all of the benefits of citizenship.
2) They don't have to be citizens to sway the culture.
3) "Never F-ing Ever" isn't going to happen. The current congress cannot put limits on what a future Congress might do. If they say, "We're creating new immigration status 'X' that means you came over illegally, but got squared with us- and now you can never ever get citizenship" then 2, 4, 6 , or however many years later, another congress can say, "All people of immigration status 'X' are automatically citizens."
Amnesty is wrong, for lots of reasons. If someone really wants to deal with immigration, enforcement must be step one. That is a simple fact of life- until the border is more-or-less controlled (we'll never control it completely, but we can do a whole lot better than we are now), granting any kind of amnesty amounts to inviting illegal immigration and favoring illegals over legal immigrants.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 06:46 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 29, 2013 06:46 AM (tmzN0)
Posted by: J. at January 29, 2013 06:46 AM (D5Jpp)
Posted by: Fritz at January 29, 2013 06:46 AM (WM+rJ)
Blacks.
They've been voting for Democrats for 2-3 generations. Reap, sow, meh.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 06:47 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 29, 2013 06:47 AM (Rh+Np)
Posted by: Vic at January 29, 2013 06:47 AM (53z96)
Posted by: joncelli at January 29, 2013 06:47 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Future Diabetic Azauria at January 29, 2013 06:48 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Invictus at January 29, 2013 10:35 AM (OQpzc)
----------------------------
It's much easier to fake after a fifth of this. http://tinyurl.com/pu7b7
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 29, 2013 10:41 AM (sbV1u)
If you wanna go Aussie, go Aussie. I bet you'll talk funny afterward.
http://tinyurl.com/acg7lsd
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 06:48 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 29, 2013 06:49 AM (GVxQo)
I find the immigration debate vexing. For one, I honestly do not know what the best answer/solution is. For many problems, I know the solution, but alos understand that politics likely prevent the solution from occuring. For immigration, I am really not sure I know the solution.
For me, I don't like the idea of building a fence, I don't like E-verify. I find those "solutions" to be non-conservative or anti-libertarian. Therefore I don't want to entertain them. Deportation is simply impractical at this point. I also do not find aspects of the Dream Act that bad. I could easily support a law that allowed citizenship to someone who served in the military or earned a degree in some real skill (math, medicine, nursing, technology, even the law).
It seems to me that the solutions to this problem are worse than the problem itself. This is often the case, we make problems worse by trying to solve them. Our immigration system does need revamping, but that to me is seperate and apart from trying to deal with the 10 million illegals. Or at least it could be done seperate and apart.
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 06:49 AM (gmeXX)
we are not going to kick out "11 million" more like 44 million people because the American people are caught in a stupid fucking doublebind that could be ended tomorrow.
Cut their benefits and offer 5,000 dollar a head of illegal caught bounties since Mary Landrieu is CONVINCED we are not in a spending problem, and Nancy Pelosi thinks direct wealth transfer is the key to a BOOMING economy.
Baby has a legal birth certificate the baby stays if the parents want or can come "home" when able.
My wife was born at NATO HQ in Belgium ODDLY nobody offered her Belgian fucking citizenship.
America is expected to not only play by "legal rules" no other 1st world nation is expected to endure, but then as an added bonus we have "illegal rules" designed to aid one party that we are expected to endure.
When do I get to invade Mexico and send loot back home to America?
This is a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head of the republic.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 06:49 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Truman North, in the heroes of government health care at January 29, 2013 06:49 AM (2IgCi)
Posted by: eman at January 29, 2013 06:49 AM (jp2Ur)
This is all kinds of wrong.
Posted by: EC at January 29, 2013 06:49 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: RWC at January 29, 2013 06:49 AM (fWAjv)
Trap, de facto is. Yeesssssss.
Posted by: S M O D A at January 29, 2013 06:49 AM (trA4n)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 06:50 AM (wbmaj)
The baby born in the bathroom of a Tim Hortons in Windsor, Ont., will receive Timbits for life.
By the age of 18, she'll look like Sally Struthers.
Posted by: EC at January 29, 2013 06:50 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: JDavid at January 29, 2013 06:50 AM (O7eOR)
US citizenship means nothing now. It is an empty phrase, reflecting something that once existed in the past.
We are witnessing the dismantling of our country.
Obama wants it that way.
We are the generation that watched as it happened. Our children and grandchildren may villify our names.
Posted by: Who Knows at January 29, 2013 06:50 AM (W+Itt)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 29, 2013 06:50 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 06:51 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 06:51 AM (ZKzrr)
They've been voting for Democrats for 2-3 generations. Reap, sow, meh.
Ditto. Couldn't care less.
In fact....it's already starting: http://tinyurl.com/a5nayn3
¡Arriba, amigos! ¡Arriba!
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 29, 2013 06:51 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: McAdams at January 29, 2013 06:51 AM (J/+6n)
Oh wait fuck them they don't count.
If we "must" give 44 million amnesty why don't we just abolish INS and tear up all legal tracking of personal data by the government......?
Just show the fuck up you're an American.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 06:51 AM (LRFds)
=========
Fuck you and your dishonest hackery.
They didn't get here overnight and we won't remove them overnight--no one but no one is saying that, except you and the assholes like you.
We lock down the border, we enforce the laws already on the books and in 5 or ten years we won't have an illegal immigration problem.
Which is exactly where we would be right now if they had fucking started this ten years ago when they pushed amnesty the last time.
You know, the same old shit we keep running into with the fucking dishonest leftists--we can't do anything now because it would take ten years before we see results.
And ten years later we have the same fucking problem.
Posted by: RoyalOil at January 29, 2013 06:51 AM (imtbm)
Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 29, 2013 06:51 AM (GVxQo)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 29, 2013 06:52 AM (9Bj8R)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at January 29, 2013 06:52 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: sans_sheriff at January 29, 2013 06:52 AM (OQHM+)
That is an issue of tactics. All I am saying is that there are 3 options: (1) make them legal residents, (2) ignore the problem/kick the can down the road (what we basically do now), (3) deport all illegal aliens. Number 2 sucks and is killing us right now, and number 3 is impossible. Number 1 is the only option.
And I agree that this is completely unfair to those who go through the immigration process legally. But what the F does fairness have to do with anything? What are we, lefties? Sometimes doing things the right way doesn't pay off, and being a dick does pay off. Such is life.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 06:52 AM (kuRCh)
Posted by: Jean at January 29, 2013 06:52 AM (AP6/F)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~mdbsdgEGwG::
Posted by: Deli LLama at January 29, 2013 06:52 AM (lGu1O)
Edited:
You cannot "assimilate" people who have no interest in "assimilation." This has been a decades long invasion across a border 1000 miles long. They come here to take-not to give. And, many many come to re-take what they believe is rightfully theirs. This 11 million will be followed by the next 11 million--and that's a fact. The change in demographics will dictate this result. Whites, who will be a minority by 2040, will have no control of this debate or this issue. This is the end-de facto or otherwise. Demographics dictate the future.
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 06:53 AM (wbmaj)
visa, which wouldnÂ’t allow them access to welfare services,
Which would hold up until the first Federal Judge looked at it and said, "14th Amendment, bitches, do you speak it?" Equal protection for all "within the jurisdiction..." granting them any legal status makes them "withing the jurisdiction" of the United States.
I know people don't want to hear it, but Rubio is right. We aren't going to kick out 11 million people. That isn't a battle we are going to win, ever.
Fuck you. No one is saying that. Even the ones who talk about it a) have to be asked first, and b) simply say "Yeah, really we could. It would be difficult, and costly, and probably not worth it. But we could."
We don't have to "kick out" anyone. Simple enforcement of the laws on the books will cause many of them to self deport. Of the rest, they'll be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
All we're asking for is that current law be applied. But somehow that's the same as saying we want to round up all the 11 (probably closer to 1
And don't even get me started on "illegals brought here as children..."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 06:53 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 29, 2013 06:53 AM (GVxQo)
Talk funny?!?!?!?
After that I'll walk funny.
And love it....
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 29, 2013 06:53 AM (sbV1u)
Wow, we get to watch a race war happen again.
Posted by: EC at January 29, 2013 06:53 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: John Boehner at January 29, 2013 06:53 AM (tmzN0)
Blacks.
They've been voting for Democrats for 2-3 generations. Reap, sow, meh.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 10:47 AM (ZKzrr)
I was surprised by how much Latinos supported Obama. You got to give it to Obama he worked that angle. Having all those Latino celebrities supporting him probably helped a lot.
Posted by: Long Island at January 29, 2013 06:53 AM (hl8SI)
I said this yesterday, and it hurts a bit. I've always been opposed to a National ID, but there isn't any other way around the need for one now. Papers, please. Forty years ago you could get along in society without an ID okay, but no longer. Blame it on computers I guess.
The reality is that you can't do quite a few things nowadays without a photo ID of some sort. With more states such as IL now issuing DLs to illegals, the quality of various state issued IDs is deteriorating to trash anyhow.
I don't like it, but there it is.
Posted by: GnuBreed at January 29, 2013 06:53 AM (ccXZP)
Posted by: Jean at January 29, 2013 06:55 AM (AP6/F)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 29, 2013 06:55 AM (RRVBX)
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 10:43 AM (kuRCh)
Of that 11 million, at would venture to say a majority are dependent on our welfare system. Why do they need to become citizens? I agree that reform is needed but it has to be fair to other legal green card holders and applicants and it has to be in our interest and not something that will harm our system even more.
Also my positon has evolved to where I want a strict employment enforcement prior to any path to citizenship reform. I want a period of self deportation before I give up on reducing the number of illegals in this country. I am no longer of the opinion that we can't reduce the illegal population.
Posted by: polynikes at January 29, 2013 06:55 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Deli LLama at January 29, 2013 06:55 AM (lGu1O)
Posted by: zsasz at January 29, 2013 06:55 AM (wWb/B)
exactly....
well fuck you you 100+ million gunowners with your old fucking ideas on liberty and natural rights....we have new and improved amigos to offset half of you!
asshole politicians.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 06:55 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 29, 2013 06:55 AM (Lxw+T)
30 years ago I could not conceive of anyone willingly giving up U.S. citizenship. Two years ago my brother gave his up and I understood completely. (Taxes were destroying his ability to take care of his family.) Today? If I had my brother's option I would give up my U.S. citizenship in a heartbeat.
Damn it.
Posted by: jj at January 29, 2013 06:56 AM (gWO5X)
Posted by: Fritz at January 29, 2013 06:56 AM (WM+rJ)
How's everyone like those Rubio 2016 fanatics now?
-----
Why don't we see how this plays out before deciding to tear down Rubio. 2016 is a long way away. I would say Rubio is the de facto front runner, but that really doesn't mean much now. The field should be wide open. I'm not willing to totally abandon Rubio because of these efforts. At least not yet. I'm as open to a Rubio nomination, as a Jindal nomination, a Paul nomination, or many others that may come to fruition. And I am not going to simply toss Rubio overboard until I know how this will play out.
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 06:56 AM (gmeXX)
"impossible" I don't think you know what the fucking word means....
did you notice that the military is practicing Urban Kung-Fu ninja shit?
Be a damn shame if the Border Patrol actually had to do their fucking job wouldn't it?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 06:57 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: dananjcon at January 29, 2013 06:57 AM (jvd3N)
Posted by: Jean at January 29, 2013 06:57 AM (AP6/F)
Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 29, 2013 06:57 AM (GVxQo)
Well, maybe if I shoot myself in the foot first I have some sympathy working for me.
But more likely laughter and ridicule.
Most moves made in panic mode result in an even more disastrous outcome.
The only silver lining that I see is that maybe this will finally result in the necessary divorce of Conservative from the RINO party.
Posted by: ontherocks at January 29, 2013 06:57 AM (aZ6ew)
OT has anyone heard about the live fire exercises by the USArmy in Miami and Houston?
Like they are practicing fighting the people?
Posted by: thunderb at January 29, 2013 06:57 AM (Dnbau)
Beyond the principle of it, there are the personal ramifications. If it hasn't impacted you yet, it will soon.
It's conflicting ways of life and mores. It's 2 to 4 families in a house next door. It's loose pitbulls, a blocked driveway because of the many cars suddenly on the street, it's getting woken up by roosters in the city.
Posted by: Who Knows at January 29, 2013 06:57 AM (W+Itt)
Posted by: The littl shyning man at January 29, 2013 06:58 AM (PH+2B)
Sheriff Joe Arpaio might arrest a few drunken mexicans in Maricopa county driving around town. He won't arrest the Mexicans maintaining the golf courses.
In Washington State claiming you've witnessed a white man operating a shovel is right up there next to people claiming they've seen big foot.
Go to any Home Depot or Lowes and off to the side of the parking lot are 'Day Workers' looking for work.
Posted by: harrywr2 at January 29, 2013 06:58 AM (fDMbO)
Posted by: Jehu at January 29, 2013 06:58 AM (cSD32)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 29, 2013 06:58 AM (Ec6wH)
Say hello to a permanent Democrat majority.
Posted by: Joe Mama
"When deciding whether a group of people is to be faced with permanent exile, speculation as to their politics is disgusting."
A well-known conservative columnist
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 29, 2013 06:58 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 29, 2013 06:58 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: S M O D A at January 29, 2013 06:58 AM (trA4n)
Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 29, 2013 06:58 AM (GVxQo)
Sorry to comment and run, but wow SH, could you please leave the country? Your ignorance and irresponsibility are literally dangerous to the community.
Don't like laws? Move to eastern Kenya, not much law there. But don't help degrade and impoverish and enslave this country further with your ignorance and irresponsibility.
And take this idiot twink Rubio with you. Never was very impressed by him -seemed 99% gee-whiz dreamy immigrant American dream salesman, 1% political leader - but he's now shown just how vacuous and worthless he really is.
So any guesses on what this shit will do to the GOP's prospects? Half of Bush's low poll numbers in the second term stemmed pretty much from the amnesty outrage. Where does this debacle lead?
Posted by: non-purist at January 29, 2013 06:58 AM (afQnV)
Posted by: zsasz at January 29, 2013 06:58 AM (wWb/B)
I'll go along with granting permanent resident status, but not citizenship.
If they would institute the Fair Tax Plan, I would support sending busses to Mexico to bring as many people as possible here.
Posted by: jwest at January 29, 2013 06:59 AM (ZDsRL)
They will be branded the rest of their lives with the scarlet "A."
The Dems know this.
And the criminal for life, free only at the whim of the rulers, is by far the easiest to rule.
They will vote as they are told and will never stray beyond their place; the Dems get votes and lock themselves in their gated community of white luxury.
Posted by: RoyalOil at January 29, 2013 06:59 AM (imtbm)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 29, 2013 06:59 AM (4c71i)
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 07:00 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Eaton Cox is kind of a LIBNO at January 29, 2013 07:00 AM (+wxCD)
No. For the reason I mentioned before. If congress does this, what prevents them from then, in a few years, after the furor dies down, passing another law that then allows them to apply for citizenship, or even just grants it outright? Remember, Democrats believe simply "living and working here for 5 years" gives someone the "Right" to citizenship.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 07:01 AM (8y9MW)
Whenever politicians call something "comprehensive", bend over, they're getting ready to shove it up your ass
Posted by: kbdabear at January 29, 2013 07:01 AM (wwsoB)
Posted by: Jean at January 29, 2013 07:01 AM (DZ9ke)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 29, 2013 07:01 AM (m0v2L)
Posted by: Fritz Hector Camacho at January 29, 2013 07:01 AM (WM+rJ)
Seriously, can anyone here believe it?
We, WE, are the generation that watched our country be dismantled before our eyes.
Simply amazing.
Posted by: Who Knows at January 29, 2013 07:01 AM (W+Itt)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 29, 2013 07:02 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: John Boehner at January 29, 2013 07:02 AM (tmzN0)
The Bush wing of the party is complicit, too. Bush's amnesty gambit essentially cost us Congress. They have been the strongest proponents of amnesty since the first amnesty was imposed even though the Democrats have now taken the lead. The working class (which was much of the blue collar Dems) used to be against amnesty since the increased labor pool impacted them the most acutely. They put pressure on their leaders not to go full retard for more amnesty and especially not without GOP cover.
Well, now the GOP is providing cover. Again. The Stupid Party has just received another bolus of Bushism and Rubio is the prime carrier. MCain and Graham are just being the a**holes they always were.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 29, 2013 07:02 AM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 29, 2013 07:02 AM (4c71i)
There is no dual citizenship. In the US govt's eyes, you are either a US citizen or not.
For example, I immigrated here from Canada and became naturalized. I am a citizen in both Canada and the US. Canada recognizes dual citizens, but the US does not. I cannot enter the US using my Canadian passport, only my US one.
Posted by: EC at January 29, 2013 07:02 AM (GQ8sn)
The reason I say that we won't be able to simply deport 11 million people is because we have been trying this for 30+ years and it has been a constant and abject failure. Also, when you try to uproot people who have been here for 10-20-30 years (illegally), there are serious political consequences. Even though they don't vote (and of course many of them do, and are encouraged to do so). This is not a battle that can be won.
Yes this is incredibly unfair. And people are pissed off about it. But we need to get over it and focus on what the real goal should be: stopping illegal immigration. Build the Great Wall of China on the border. Boost border patrol. Deal with the Mexican government that sends the dregs of their society up here on purpose. This is where our focus should be.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 07:03 AM (kuRCh)
Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattleboro, Vt and Proud of it !!!!!!!!!! at January 29, 2013 07:03 AM (48wze)
you must convert...
Posted by: S M O D A at January 29, 2013 07:03 AM (trA4n)
LOL if he did!
Posted by: EC at January 29, 2013 07:03 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 29, 2013 07:04 AM (RRVBX)
Posted by: Fiscal Insolvency at January 29, 2013 07:04 AM (tmzN0)
Schmuckie Schumer and other amnesty fetishists have already confirmed that the illegals will be eligible for Obamacare and they hope they use it often
Posted by: kbdabear at January 29, 2013 07:04 AM (wwsoB)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 07:04 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: Al at January 29, 2013 07:04 AM (V70Uh)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 29, 2013 07:04 AM (Lxw+T)
Or in other words you are getting apoplectic over the framework and initial discussions without knowing what is really in any potential legislation? The rest is conjecture and speculation on what the bill may contain.
I understand the sentiment. We've been doinked up the squeakhole since Reagan on immigration issues. I don't want to go down that road again. But we've kicked this can far enough.
I would rather say that our line should be drawn at reaching a tangible securing of the border as a first step. Period, full stop. Next, nobody should receive any federal benefits until they qualify for a Green Card. On that particular issue, I save my scorn for the Chamber of Commerce. To wit, why don't the people hiring these illegals pay full boat- medical care, unemployment, taxes, etc.? Lose your job? Deported or your employer pays benefits until you find another job. Felony or misdemeanor? Goodbye.
Why should we pay while employers skate when our communities, schools and hospitals pay the freight. That's total BS.
By the way, you want to confer some type of "protected" status that keeps them from getting deported- we can discuss that. Not a "legal" status which allows them to suck off the tit of our government forever.
Posted by: Marcus at January 29, 2013 07:04 AM (GGCsk)
Posted by: Kook in the Mirror at January 29, 2013 07:05 AM (ORGYc)
The difference is that Cuba does not allow people to immigrate to the US. We used to do the same for Russians who were able to get over hear and then sneak away from their escorts.
With Cubans its a little more informal (for a few reasons), but essentially we're granting any Cuban who can make it to the Continental US political asylum. The immigration process from Mexico to the US may be hard, but it's not impossible.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 07:05 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 29, 2013 07:05 AM (Rh+Np)
You know all those illegals working here and sending money home?
Won't it be more like 50 million once they bring their families here, because compassion?
Posted by: Invictus at January 29, 2013 07:05 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: CelticCaptain at January 29, 2013 07:05 AM (7N2jC)
For example, I immigrated here from Canada and became naturalized. I am a citizen in both Canada and the US. Canada recognizes dual citizens, but the US does not. I cannot enter the US using my Canadian passport, only my US one.
Posted by: EC at January 29, 2013 11:02 AM (GQ8sn)
I was told something entirely different by the immigration attorney. She said US does offer dual citizenships. My wife cannot have a dual citizenship though because her home country of Denmark does not allow them.
Posted by: Heralder at January 29, 2013 07:05 AM (+xmn4)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 29, 2013 07:05 AM (4c71i)
Posted by: eman at January 29, 2013 07:06 AM (jp2Ur)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 07:06 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 29, 2013 07:06 AM (GVxQo)
Yup, I once used the colorful language to explain that the Romans spent a hundred years teaching the Germans how to teach then the Greek love they taught the Germans....
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:06 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: zsasz at January 29, 2013 07:06 AM (wWb/B)
They're socialists and regulate their immigration (there's a concept...) by, get this, BMI.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 07:06 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: SFGoth at January 29, 2013 07:06 AM (dZ756)
Apparently, that makes me a homophobic, immigrant hating, racist Reich-winger. Or something.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 07:06 AM (da5Wo)
Like I said yesterday and someone else repeated up thread. If you are in the LIB to the ground group without the goal of returning the United States to the right path, this is what you've been looking for.
I've got my application ready to fill out to join that group but I can't quite pull the trigger. I still have a little fight left in me but not much.
Posted by: polynikes at January 29, 2013 07:06 AM (m2CN7)
Also allow deportation of people who don't sign up for any deal by a set deadline or enter the country after that date. No exceptions.
Posted by: Marcus at January 29, 2013 07:07 AM (GGCsk)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at January 29, 2013 07:07 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 07:07 AM (wbmaj)
Sorry to comment and run, but wow SH, could you please leave the country? Your ignorance and irresponsibility are literally dangerous to the community.
Don't like laws? Move to eastern Kenya, not much law there. But don't help degrade and impoverish and enslave this country further with your ignorance and irresponsibility.
----
Wow - non-purist. I guess you have no room in this country for me. Yeah, I don't like all laws. I think most laws are bad, and I'm not in favor of making further bad laws. And I'm not in favor of enforcing bad laws on the books.
I'm not sure how I'm being irresponsible either. Make an honest debate of what you want and tell me why it is proper and right. I have honestly raised the point that I find E-verify to be a terrible idea.
I think building a fence is a terrible idea. Why? Because it will be costly, it will not work, and frankly I just wince at the idea of living inside a wall. Now the third point is only a minor one, but something I think we as conservatives should really consider. If you told me that a fence would abosultely work, then ok. But I have strong doubts that it would work. Note that this does not mean I am against border enforcement. It means that I think border enforcement is more than building a fence. See Rick Perry's ideas on border enforcement.
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 07:07 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 29, 2013 07:07 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Al at January 29, 2013 11:04 AM (V70Uh)
This is exactly why immigration reform would ideally be tied to changing to the Fair Tax Plan. The more legal permanent residents paying into the system with sales tax the better for the citizens who get the benefits.
Posted by: jwest at January 29, 2013 07:07 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: S M O D A at January 29, 2013 07:08 AM (trA4n)
Haitians escaping Canada.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15border.html
I can't make this shit up.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 07:08 AM (ZKzrr)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. consumer confidence plunged in January to its lowest level in more than a year, reflecting higher Social Security taxes that left Americans with less take-home pay.
The Conference Board said Tuesday that its consumer confidence index
dropped to 58.6 in January. That's down from a reading of 66.7 in
December and the lowest since November 2011.
How can this be? I mean in today's day and age isn't, What difference does it make, our motto?
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 29, 2013 07:09 AM (RRVBX)
Learn English, LOL .. with every damn public school teaching them in Spanish through the 8th grade?
Background check? Surrrrrrre, that'll happen after they run to the MSM crying that it's RAAACCCISSSSTTT
Back taxes? How do you calculate back taxes on phony ID's and cash under the table?
Posted by: kbdabear at January 29, 2013 07:09 AM (wwsoB)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 07:09 AM (wbmaj)
Is the GOP going to be the Party that says these Hispanics should remain 2nd Class citizens once we can no longer deport them? Of course not, we HAVE to cater to the Hispanic vote, that's what the media tells us! Just this one last time, then we'll get tough!
If you pass a "pathway", every single illegal will be on that pathway, and millions more will flood over and say they've been here for years.
Posted by: McAdams at January 29, 2013 07:09 AM (J/+6n)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 07:09 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 29, 2013 11:04 AM (RRVBX)
Sad but true. The late Romans basically ceded their army to the barbarians, because hey, only losers want to be in the military.
Posted by: joncelli at January 29, 2013 07:09 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: andycanuck at January 29, 2013 07:09 AM (ORGYc)
Make it an annual tax on immigrants; say an additional 20% of annual income, until they can 'qualify' for citizenship.
Ya, ya, I know. The dems would never go for it, it wouldn't be fair. The GOP doesn't have the courage. Only the libertarians would support it, and they are too few in number.
But what the hell, SELL US citizenship. IF you can pay the price, you get to be a US Citizen!. How does half a million bucks sound to you? What is the current price for a college degree? We could balance the budget and reduce US Treasury debt, if not eliminate it entirely.
Posted by: Skandia Recluse at January 29, 2013 07:10 AM (47jOx)
And, once again (I get not reading the post, but at least read the comments)- that's not even a position that is on the table. No one is saying we should be rounding up and deporting them.
As for "we have been trying this for 30+years..." Bullshit. We haven't tried anything like it. Most of the time when an illegal is caught, they're released into their own recognizance to return for a formal immigration hearing. I understand the percentage that actually show up for that hearing is in the low single digits. And then, because they're here illegally (and undocumented) when they get caught again, they can just give a different name (or even just a different spelling) and they're "first time offenders" again.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 07:10 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: TC at January 29, 2013 07:10 AM (vYB+W)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 29, 2013 07:10 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Total Financial Devastation at January 29, 2013 07:10 AM (jucos)
Question for you amnesty supporters - why can't we just build that fucking fence first? Why is it always amnesty, then build a fence? Because every time we play that song and dance, the fence never happens. Who the fuck cares about the illegal criminals here now - finish the job first. Fence. Now.
Posted by: Gaff at January 29, 2013 07:10 AM (uh3SH)
And yes, Rubio is now a RINO
Posted by: Vic at January 29, 2013 07:11 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Who Knows at January 29, 2013 07:11 AM (W+Itt)
Here's what the State Dept says:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
Posted by: EC at January 29, 2013 07:11 AM (GQ8sn)
I just can't wait until we grant this and SURPRISE! Hispanics continue to overwhelmingly vote Democrat, this time with 11 million more to their ranks.
Posted by: McAdams
"Those whose primary concern about immigration reform is how many votes it will buy the GOP are horrible human beings."
A well-known conservative columnist
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 29, 2013 07:11 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: J. at January 29, 2013 07:11 AM (D5Jpp)
Posted by: blindside at January 29, 2013 07:11 AM (x7g7t)
"The first battle over amnesty is for the word “amnesty”. If those of us who oppose this policy lose this battle, we will undoubtedly lose the war."
So far, I haven't heard any national-level GOP politician speak out against this latest amnesty push. Not one. Without legislative resistance, this massive Democratic voter expansion program is a fait accompli and arguments deconstructing the semantic meaning and etymological roots of the word 'amnesty' become academic, moot.
The Republican Establishment has convinced itself that millions of non-English speaking, mostly uneducated and unskilled Hispanic immigrants, when given the choice between the GOP, with its emphasis on self-reliance, hard work, self-respect and individual freedom, and the Democratic Party, which offers Free Shit For Life (TM), are going to choose the GOP. The basic premise seems to be that new Hispanic immigrants will gravitate to conservativism since most of them are Catholics. Right. Boston, anyone?
Yes, amnesty will be a disaster, but the failure of GOP leadership and logic is the story here: further proof, if any more is needed, that the Republican Party is unwilling or unable to fulfill its crucial role as the opposition party. Ryan's 'strategy' of prudence and subtlety isn't a strategy. It's an approach, a method, a means. A good strategy for an opposition party would be to oppose everything the Democrats propose, on every issue, and let them reach across the aisle for once.
Posted by: troyriser at January 29, 2013 07:11 AM (vtiE6)
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at January 29, 2013 07:12 AM (hzV1U)
"Conservative columnists" who want to gift the democrats with a Constitution breaking supermajority in perpetuity are fucking retards.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:12 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: blindside at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 11:07 AM (LRFds)
Hmmm....
Good beer...Check
Cold-ass winters...XX
Annoying up-talk accents...XX
Nickel Back...XX
Eh...No.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (jvd3N)
I thought you were a radical libertarian, Shit Head, not a conservative?
---
I'll assume that was directed at me. Being a conservative and being a libetarian are not mutually exclusive, as you and others assume it is.
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Y-not at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Who Knows at January 29, 2013 11:08 AM (W+Itt)
Actually the Roman Empire broke up into individual City/States. IOW it divided into individual principalities. That is the best thing that could happen to us right now.
Posted by: Vic at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: zsasz at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (wWb/B)
Posted by: kbdabear at January 29, 2013 11:09 AM
How the hell can you get a permit to do a damned illegal thing!
Posted by: Dr Leonard McCoy at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (wwsoB)
Posted by: S M O D A at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (trA4n)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 29, 2013 07:13 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 29, 2013 07:14 AM (4c71i)
-------
Not necessarily. If an illegal is illegally employed 9no proof of employment eligibility) they can get a taxpayer ID number (TID) to use on tax returns. No fraudulently obtained documents required. The IRS is very flexible when it comes to collecting taxes. They don't care if you work legally or not until they decide to care.
Posted by: RioBravo at January 29, 2013 07:14 AM (eEfYn)
Byron York on FoxB now saying this shit is going nowhere. The Republican leadership in the Senate says it is going nowhere. The gang of 8 with the 4 RINOs can suck ass.
Posted by: Vic
In the Senate, how would the leadership stop it? The filibuster has been "reformed", and 55 Dems + 4 Repubs from the gang of 8 gets you to 59.
Just need one more Repub. Not exactly like trying to fill an inside straight.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 29, 2013 07:14 AM (kdS6q)
Current Headline: Coming: Amnesty for 11 Million
Right about the headline is an upside down American flag.
Above and to the left of that in smaller print: 2007 bill collapsed after after voters flooded Congress with angry calls (hint hint)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 07:14 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: Dante at January 29, 2013 07:14 AM (NWLVJ)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 29, 2013 07:14 AM (tmzN0)
Posted by: andycanuck at January 29, 2013 07:14 AM (ORGYc)
We have been trying to push this approach for 30+ years and it has never become a reality. I don't doubt the logistics of moving 9 million people; that is not the issue. The issue is making deportation a political reality.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 07:15 AM (kuRCh)
This war has been over for decades and we (those who believe in the rule of law, that illegal means illegal, that illegals ought not cut in line ahead of those who are trying to immigrate legally, etc.) lost, in a rout.
Posted by: DocJ at January 29, 2013 07:15 AM (A5uiv)
Canadian girls are pretty nice. They keep you warm at night, or at least that's what the Beach Boys told me.
Posted by: EC at January 29, 2013 07:16 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: J. at January 29, 2013 07:16 AM (D5Jpp)
#240 A Mexican flag would also have been appropriate.
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 07:16 AM (wbmaj)
Seems to be a pattern here. Vae victus
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 29, 2013 07:16 AM (RRVBX)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 29, 2013 07:17 AM (Lxw+T)
You'll have to interject "hoser" at odd moments in your conversations, and end all questions with "eh?" ---
Also diagram the neutral zone trap and sing all the lyrics to 2112
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at January 29, 2013 07:17 AM (SO2Q8)
If the R leadership thinks that they won't lose Conservative/Constitutionalist voters like myself over this betrayal then they best think again. This amnesty crap is a deal breaker. We got no place else to go? Bullsh*t! I'll start voting Libertarian or Constitution Part or Freedom or whatever; just know that the enablers (R Party) to socialism (D Party) will not get my vote again no matter how many nice election eve plea/essays Ace writes about how a protest vote will only help the progressives.
You expect this kinda crap from the McCains and Boehners but Rubio! Major disappointment.
Posted by: calvinronald reagancoolidge at January 29, 2013 07:17 AM (VDovR)
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:17 AM (LRFds)
==========
ON the up-side, owning a still is legal in NZ.
Posted by: RoyalOil at January 29, 2013 07:17 AM (imtbm)
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at January 29, 2013 07:17 AM (hzV1U)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 29, 2013 11:14 AM (kdS6q)
I suspect they don't have all the Democrats either.
Posted by: Vic at January 29, 2013 07:17 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 07:18 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 07:18 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: t-bird at January 29, 2013 07:18 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: RioBravo at January 29, 2013 11:14 AM (eEfYn)
True, I was amazed to find this. They offer ITIN numbers for that purpose. They specifically say it's basically a no-questions-asked type of thing and the only way an ITIN gets refused is if you are legally elegible to get a SS number. The IRS figures if other agencies are not going to bother trying to deport, they should at least try to collect taxes.
Posted by: Heralder at January 29, 2013 07:19 AM (+xmn4)
Unfortunately, many of them are the kind of Catholic who think all it takes is going to confession after they just assassinated someone one behalf of the drug cartel.
We have been trying to push this approach for 30+ years and it has never become a reality.
Really? Who has been "pushing" mass deportation? I know that Democrats claim we are, but who has actually been doing it. Every time the conversation has come up in my living memory (and it seems to come up every few years) the proponents of enforcing our fucking laws say "Enforce the fucking laws first. Once that's done, then we can consider what to do with the ones who are already hear." Then the fucking liars on the Left go out and scream from the rooftops "They want to deport your babies!"
And then people like you buy into their rhetoric.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 07:19 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 29, 2013 07:19 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: TC
Nice of Dubya to create that DHS in response to 19 Arabs with box cutters.
Posted by: SFGoth at January 29, 2013 07:19 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: t-bird at January 29, 2013 07:20 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at January 29, 2013 11:17 AM (hzV1U)
YES. The people who's very first acts are to break the law (they crossed illegally and are using fraudulent identities) are exactly who I want as the citizenry.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 07:20 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 07:20 AM (wbmaj)
I've always been a fan of the "Hazleton (PA) Solution" for this problem:
-If you employ an illegal alien you are subject to a fine or imprisonment.
-If you rent an apartment to an illegal alien you are subject to a fine or imprisonment.
Once they get it into their heads that there's no work and no place to live they leave- no need to deport anybody.
But that works, so I guess it's racist or something...
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 29, 2013 07:20 AM (RSqz2)
Need to pay a cumulative total of $50,000 in Federal Taxes before you become eligible for citizenship. That way only people who've reached middle class can get the right to vote.
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 29, 2013 07:20 AM (UypUQ)
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 11:15 AM (kuRCh)
It worked in those cities / states that enacted laws or enforced laws against benefits, employment and housing for illegal aliens. Again, they self deported, at least out of that area.
Posted by: polynikes at January 29, 2013 07:20 AM (m2CN7)
Incompetence and overreach by a narcissistic sociopath -- our last hope.
Posted by: angienc at January 29, 2013 07:20 AM (w3JGl)
Posted by: J. at January 29, 2013 07:20 AM (D5Jpp)
yeah um....
"yeah" I notice a lot of Rotary Club drive in east LA and Brownsville....
"yeah"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:20 AM (LRFds)
I'm not sure where this 11 million number comes from. That is the number of Illegals in California alone. LA has 3.5 million by itself.
I'm confident that the number is much closer to 30 million, and that is not only hispanics...
And, to question of who is punished by the system? Go look in the mirror.
Posted by: Gunslinger at January 29, 2013 07:21 AM (4S7hN)
Posted by: Steven at January 29, 2013 07:21 AM (5p6MR)
Fuckity, fuckity, fuck.
You see where they were going with that "news" now, don't you?
That was the big lie to scare the easily scared RINOs into supporting amnesty.
Posted by: RoyalOil at January 29, 2013 07:21 AM (imtbm)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 29, 2013 07:21 AM (W4Q1C)
Posted by: SFGoth at January 29, 2013 11:19 AM (dZ756)
Your sarcasm humor needs work.
Posted by: polynikes at January 29, 2013 07:21 AM (m2CN7)
and they don't care how much CTC or EITC fraud you commit either....
trust me I know....
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:21 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Y-not at January 29, 2013 07:22 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 07:22 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 07:22 AM (wbmaj)
Asset forfeiture of businesses or personages caught employing illegals, just as the case with drug laws. It would take care of the issue overnight,mwith no harshness towards our illegal friends.
_____
I would not want to give the federal government more avenues for asset forfeiture.
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 07:22 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 07:22 AM (CBCxo)
258One of the interesting things I've noticed lately is that many of the traditional illegals have migrated back to Mexico, because the US economy sucks.
Here's the deal: live in America for ten years and send home half or more of the money you earn. You buy property and most likely a small buiseness.You build what in your new neighborhood is a mansion. Return home and live like a friggin' king among your friends and family.
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 29, 2013 07:22 AM (m0v2L)
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 29, 2013 07:23 AM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Slo Poke Rodriguez at January 29, 2013 07:23 AM (d4vjp)
Posted by: blindside at January 29, 2013 07:24 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: Y-not at January 29, 2013 07:24 AM (5H6zj)
Hannity: “Can I characterize that, if you don’t get enforcement first, or securing the borders first, is that a deal killer for you?”
Posted by: Marcus at January 29, 2013 07:25 AM (GGCsk)
Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at January 29, 2013 07:25 AM (DGIjM)
Looking at the picture from a slightly different angle.
America already props Mexico up to an amazing degree. The amount the illegals send back and what the churches here do. Every weekend, each church on the border sends high schoolers and others across to do work for orphanages and to do medical help.
Mexico "mission giving" is a huge deal in most southwestern churches.
That's not even enough though. It's never enough.
Posted by: Who Knows at January 29, 2013 07:25 AM (W+Itt)
Because you can't get the EITC check without filing a return.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 07:25 AM (ZKzrr)
Politicians, activists, and journalists would know this shit if they lived in the real world.
Cops could tell you about it, but I'm sure the senior level hacks will be cheering for amnesty just like they fap to gun control and federal drone funding
Posted by: kbdabear at January 29, 2013 07:26 AM (wwsoB)
Posted by: eman at January 29, 2013 07:26 AM (jp2Ur)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 29, 2013 07:26 AM (W4Q1C)
Posted by: troyriser at January 29, 2013 07:26 AM (vtiE6)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 07:26 AM (CBCxo)
yeah damn if only Rubio were King of the world and Juan Queeg hadn't admitted that enforcement is a judgement call by DHS and that the blue ribbon panel is non binding.
Tell you what YOU let the illegals human wave the United States and let those states that want to leave the United States go....
then we'll cave
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:26 AM (LRFds)
1st off: $500 fine per illegal
2nd off: 1 year in jail
3rd off: 5 years in jail (felony)
4th off: Business forfeiture and 15 to 20 years in jail
For the illegals deportation to home country 1st off. Second off deportation to furtherest known land in American hemisphere (Jaun sometinganother defuca?)
3rd off: Death penalty
That will stop it.
Posted by: Vic at January 29, 2013 07:26 AM (53z96)
and they don't care how much CTC or EITC fraud you commit either....
trust me I know....
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 11:21 AM (LRFds)
That's proabably the case. The idea of saving at least some vestige of face with the ITIN number and taxing illegals is nice and all, but how many illegal immigrants are even going to look to know that's the case, and for those who do look, given they're breaking the law just by being here - why would they want to pay taxes?
I imagine it's not overall that successful an idea.
Posted by: Heralder at January 29, 2013 07:27 AM (+xmn4)
Who is saying a fence is the only solution? A fence is ONE part of a multi-tier security plan.
What is more expensive? Building a fence or allowing more people to come in illegally and collect welfare and free medical.
PS: You already live inside of a fence. Try to leave the country without a passport.
_____
Actually quite a few people seem to simply say build a fence. I have said I support increased border enforcement. I just think a fence is a terrible way to do it.
You are correct on your last statement. But there is something symbolic about a fence along a border. To me it is something totalitarian communist states do (yes for a different purpose, to keep their people in). It is something I would prefer to avoid. Now maybe that must yield to the reality of the world.
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 07:28 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 29, 2013 07:28 AM (VtjlW)
or we could just you know mount a military fucking invasion of Chihuahua, Sonora, Cohulia, and Baja Mexifornia and put the finishing touches on Mexopolis' "addition by subtraction....
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:28 AM (LRFds)
My question is: Why, exactly, do we need to Do Something?
Sympathy for lawbreakers? To protect businesses who hire illegals from prosecution? Why?
Amnesty (and Drew is right, this is amnesty) does nothing to prevent illegal immigration to continue being a problem. Pass amnesty today, and tomorrow illegals will still be coming in.
And no, a committee voting to deem the border secure does not make it so.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 29, 2013 07:28 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at January 29, 2013 07:28 AM (hzV1U)
Nice of Dubya to create that DHS in response to 19 Arabs with box cutters.
Posted by: SFGoth at January 29, 2013 11:19 AM (dZ756)
"Your sarcasm humor needs work. "
I thought the humor was executed quite well. The fact it ain't funny isn't SFGoth's fault. It's the subject matter.
I'm sure German Jews had similar problems with their jokes about the SA.
Posted by: Jaws at January 29, 2013 07:28 AM (4I3Uo)
I am for the Starship Troopers solution. Want to vote? Run for office? Serve. The military will slot you to where they think you'll work the best with the physical condition and mental abilities you have. Complete your service, get citizenship.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 07:29 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 07:29 AM (CBCxo)
Posted by: Iblis at January 29, 2013 07:29 AM (U0ndG)
Pay? Lol. You only claim enough income to get the EITC check. Like strippers.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 07:29 AM (ZKzrr)
I'm not really sure what we do. All of these masturbatory fantasies about moats and bounties and mass deportation are just wastes of mental energy.
Posted by: BSR
No one ever seems to discuss this, but:
The Mexican Repatriation refers to a mass migration that took place between 1929 and 1939, when as many as 500,000 people of Mexican descent were forced or pressured to leave the US. The State of California passed an "Apology Act" that estimated 2 million people were forced to relocate to Mexico and an estimated 1.2 million were US citizens. Authors Balderrama and Rodriguez have estimated that the total number of repatriates was about one million.
And that in an era with rudimentary record keeping and identity tracking. Improve, innovate, scale up and implement.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 29, 2013 07:29 AM (kdS6q)
Fences and wall are like locks. They are devices to keep honest people out unless monitored by someone providing security. Then they act as a time delay to allow security to respond. The better the fence, the few people assets you need.
We will never have enough people to monitor a fence as long as needed for this. The only way to stop the flow is remove the incentives for the illegals (jobs and welfare) and increase the punishment for people hiring them.
Posted by: Vic at January 29, 2013 07:29 AM (53z96)
Posted by: ALH at January 29, 2013 07:29 AM (yAPdC)
Posted by: blindside at January 29, 2013 07:29 AM (x7g7t)
One thing that worries me is that the fining employers proposal, if enacted without enough lead-time would lead to some serious economic difficuties.
California growers can't hire a million mexicans to pick the crops. How much of those crops will rot on the vine? Landscaping, construction, any industry industries that rely heavily on illegal labor could get devastated at implementation.
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at January 29, 2013 07:29 AM (SO2Q8)
oh in their hearts donkey ass motherucker knows this that is why the always add in "they PAY SALES TAX....THEY PAY SALES TAX!'
uh yeah they pay a tiny portion of their services used on the local and county level...maybe a tiny bit of state as well...
"yeah"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:29 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: troyriser at January 29, 2013 11:26 AM (vtiE6)
Because fuck you, that's why. We don't owe you gringos anything.
Posted by: Mexican Government at January 29, 2013 07:30 AM (m0v2L)
We can't deport 11 million illegals!
Back in the late 70's I remeber seeing a cartoon showing a door-to-door pollster standing at a gentleman's front door talking to said gentleman. The caption had the gentleman saying, "How do we know no country can win a global thermo-nuclear war unless we have one and find out."
Well, in that same vein, how do we know if 11 million illegals can't be deported unless we try it!
Posted by: calvinronald reagancoolidge at January 29, 2013 07:30 AM (VDovR)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 07:30 AM (wbmaj)
312 Ha! I had to drop something off for work and I successfully parallel parked! Ha!
That's right, fear my incredible mild competency. Fear. It.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 29, 2013 11:28 AM (VtjlW)
My college issued 3 times as many parking passes as it had spaces. Successful parallel parking is not mild competency, it can be an essential life skill.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 07:30 AM (da5Wo)
Franchise.
Posted by: EC at January 29, 2013 07:30 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 29, 2013 07:30 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at January 29, 2013 07:30 AM (KCvsd)
Posted by: Whatev at January 29, 2013 07:30 AM (A7Wh1)
Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at January 29, 2013 07:31 AM (DGIjM)
That's right, fear my incredible mild competency. Fear. It.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 29, 2013 11:28 AM (VtjlW)
Mind, "successful" is totally subjective.
Posted by: Heralder at January 29, 2013 07:31 AM (+xmn4)
Posted by: Andy at January 29, 2013 07:31 AM (C/NnJ)
How many North Koreans sneak into South Korea over the border? Yet we can't have that type of security for our own backyard? If we had a tenth of that MILITARY manpower, we'd have a sealed border.
If you went after businesses that hired illegal aliens, game over, half of them would be gone in a year. Cut off all public funding (which is supposed to be the law anyway) and the rest would eventually leave.
At the end of the day, I'm not pushing to remove every illegal alien, what I do insist on is a locked down border and no amnesty. I think the rest will work itself out.
Posted by: McAdams at January 29, 2013 07:31 AM (J/+6n)
Posted by: Unammed Helicopters With Cameras at January 29, 2013 07:31 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 29, 2013 07:31 AM (Ec6wH)
Furthermore, a fence is only as good as the people guarding it. Without the armed guards and security towers, the Berlin wall wasnt worth shit. Just putting up a fence without any other means of patrol is stupid.
---
I'm sure that there are plenty of Mexicans willing to do the work as armed guards
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at January 29, 2013 07:31 AM (SO2Q8)
There have been a number of news articles on illegals obtaining ITNs and using them to receive largish tax refunds by claiming lots of dependents; thanks EIC. It costs us over $4 billion per year. Here's a Blaze article about it from 2012:
http://tinyurl.com/bdhwha7
Posted by: GnuBreed at January 29, 2013 07:32 AM (ccXZP)
312Ha! I had to drop something off for work and I successfully parallel parked!
No other cars parked on that side of the street, eh?
Posted by: Sweetah Ritah, Meetah maid. at January 29, 2013 07:32 AM (m0v2L)
Amnesty? Isn't that like the french word for friend or something?
Yes, I'm all for it! Who wouldn't want more friends?
Posted by: BurtTC at January 29, 2013 07:32 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at January 29, 2013 11:28 AM (hzV1U)
That story should be used for the Gun Control debate.
Posted by: polynikes at January 29, 2013 07:32 AM (m2CN7)
My question is: Why, exactly, do we need to Do Something?
----
That is a very good question. I'm afraid that whatever that something is, it will be worse than what we have now. We may have a problem, but if the only solutions are worse than the problem, then we might as well turn our focus to something elese.
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 07:32 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 29, 2013 07:32 AM (DuH+r)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 07:32 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at January 29, 2013 11:17 AM
They'll be back once they know they get Obamacare and a shiny new EBT card along with Section 8 housing vouchers
All which the Dems have assured us they will be happy to hand to them.
Any "background check" is a joke since those doing the checks will be accused of racism and back down
Background checkers will be too busy snooping around the homes of law abiding citizens for guns anyway
Posted by: kbdabear at January 29, 2013 07:32 AM (wwsoB)
Well Obama just said he won't sign anything with an enforcement component in it, basically killing the deal.
Posted by: Iblis
Oh come now. Let the shadow play run for a few months, sign a bill with minor enforcement, then EO that off or have a federal court find them in violation of an amendment to be named latter.....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 29, 2013 07:33 AM (kdS6q)
Let's assume you're wrong about that. Because you are. That assumed, because it's true, what does their behavior actually signify?
That the knowable economic, social, and political results of the "reform" they propose--and, perhaps more significantly, of the "conversation" that precedes it--are the results they desire.
For example, this way you (each of you, from "LOL losers!" to "Primary Rubio!" to "Look how racist you all are" to "USA, RIP") feel right now. They want it. It serves them.
Posted by: oblig. at January 29, 2013 07:33 AM (cePv8)
Posted by: Vic at January 29, 2013 11:26 AM (53z96)
==========
They did that in Hazleton PA back in 2006, but the laws never took effect because the ACLU still has the city in court over it.
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 29, 2013 07:33 AM (RSqz2)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 29, 2013 07:33 AM (bZKG0)
Posted by: RWC at January 29, 2013 07:34 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 07:34 AM (CBCxo)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 29, 2013 07:34 AM (ZPrif)
>>>Posted by: Unammed Helicopters With Cameras
I fail to see how helicopters without a name solve that problem.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 07:34 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 11:29 AM (0q2P7)
And I ask, as I always do when this comes up, what happens to people who are physically unable to serve? Or mentally? And do you really want to create an actual class system? That's pretty much the opposite of the ideals this country was founded on.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 07:34 AM (da5Wo)
They are conservatives because they are Catholic is one of the stupidest lines I hear in this debate. The Catholic Church is left wing, particularly in South America. It's also left wing in this country. Even with abortion as a Dem sacrament, the bishops stand with the left wing pols.
Posted by: ejo at January 29, 2013 07:34 AM (GXvSO)
Posted by: blindside at January 29, 2013 07:34 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: RWC at January 29, 2013 07:35 AM (fWAjv)
You know, there is no reason why we couldn't do both.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 07:35 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: eman at January 29, 2013 07:35 AM (jp2Ur)
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at January 29, 2013 07:36 AM (SO2Q8)
The meatpacking industry seems to survive raids. They end up getting more applications from citizens than they have open spots.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 07:36 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: we are so screwed, deliver us oh SMOD at January 29, 2013 07:36 AM (HEa5q)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 29, 2013 07:36 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 29, 2013 07:36 AM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at January 29, 2013 07:37 AM (hzV1U)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 07:37 AM (CBCxo)
Posted by: Convicted Felons at January 29, 2013 07:37 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 29, 2013 11:32 AM (DuH+r)
Why would we ask the people who jump the border? Why don't you ask the people who are actually in line: Filipinos, Somalians, Europeans, etc.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at January 29, 2013 07:37 AM (xAtAj)
You sound like the dems claiming that they don't want to take away all guns, just "assault rifles".
Enforcing existing law means getting those who are here illegally out of the country. Yes, this is what many are fixated on. If you personally aren't in favor of moving the illegals back to their home country, but also are not in favor of letting them stay here legally, then I would love to hear what you think should be done.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 07:38 AM (kuRCh)
Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at January 29, 2013 07:38 AM (DGIjM)
Posted by: votermom at January 29, 2013 07:38 AM (tRl9M)
The cartels already probe the border constantly.
The north of Mexico is a narco-terrorist state today.
This is the reality. Today is the day. No need to wait and see. It is here.
Posted by: Who Knows at January 29, 2013 07:39 AM (W+Itt)
The US could solve Mexico's 'cartel problem" in a year.
Mexico does not want the problem solved because they cannot stand the thought of "needing help."
You grant amnesty you will have weaponized race and tribal impulse in this nation just like it is down in mexopolis.
You turn ownership into a violent exercise here I am gonna get to work playing cowboys and collectivists.
Scan me?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:39 AM (LRFds)
357 -
I think there is strong evidence the R party leadership has resigned itself to permanent minority status that preserves their leadership roles in the party.
They want to cut out those pesky Tea Party types. If there is some other explanation that makes more sense, I've yet to hear it.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 29, 2013 07:39 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at January 29, 2013 07:39 AM (hzV1U)
Posted by: Andrew at January 29, 2013 07:40 AM (HS3dy)
Posted by: akula51 at January 29, 2013 07:40 AM (YesJa)
"we'll deal with amnesty after we enforce the laws on the books", since by definition if we enforce the laws, they will all be back in Mexico.
I'd say this:
"Deport all felonous(is that a word?) illegals, drive new illegal immigration somewhere near zero, THEN we can talk amnesty.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at January 29, 2013 07:40 AM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at January 29, 2013 07:40 AM (DGIjM)
Posted by: we are so screwed, deliver us oh SMOD at January 29, 2013 07:41 AM (HEa5q)
Paraphrasing: "Oh, we never find anyone unfit. We're not allowed to. You could be bind and dumb and we'd find something- counting the hairs on caterpillars by touch, maybe. The only way to get a downcheck is to fail the psych evaluation."
And, yes, if you're going to set up the SST solution, that's what you'd have to do. Even the most mentally retarded person is capable of doing something. So is the most physically disabled. Allow them to serve out their term doing (uncomfortable, difficult, and often boring) make-work if necessary.
The other option, as someone else said- you only get to vote if you pay net taxes.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 07:41 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 29, 2013 07:42 AM (VtjlW)
As far as physically. If your physical condition means you get a desk job. Then a good able bodies soldier gets freed up to go to the field.
As far as mentally. If you lack the mental capacity to serve, why on earth should you be allowed to vote?
As far as universal suffrage being a founding principal. No it wasn't. Universal rights yes. Suffrage no. As far as philosophy on democratic processes, one thing that both Plato and Aristotle agreed on is that not everyone was capable of being a responsible Citizen and participating in governance. The difference being magnitude. Plato thought there were damn few people (Hence the current leftist thought) and they should run everything. Aristotle thought that *most* people could, but thought preconditions needed to apply (For him, you had to be 1. Armed and capable of being called to the militia, 2. have enough money that you weren't simply participating to look for handouts)
At this point I am inclined to agree with Aristotle, including the entire body of people in your electorate is a good way to make sure mankind's most base nature rules the priority of government.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 07:42 AM (0q2P7)
This problem will end. Given the direction we are heading, eventually there will be no difference in conditions north or south of the border.
At that point the need to invade will end.
Once again, being old has it's advantages.
Posted by: Meremortal, watching it burn at January 29, 2013 07:42 AM (1Y+hH)
Impliment the Fair Tax Plan and offer free transportation to anyone who wants to live and work in the U.S.
Posted by: jwest at January 29, 2013 07:42 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: 80sBaby at January 29, 2013 07:43 AM (YjDyJ)
We need some form of mandatory E-Verify type of system. No more "I didn't know that my employee with a ridiculously obvious fake ID and inability to speak any English was illegal" excuses.
Yes, I've heard the objection- "But Hollowpoint, that mandates that private employers enforce federal law!"
My retort- True, but so what?
The private sector already does this every hour of every day. When you bought your first gun from a gun shop, was it an ATF agent performing the federal NICS check, or was it the store clerk?
When you bought your first six pack of beer, was it state cop who checked your ID, or was it the liquor store cashier? When you got your first job, did you file the tax paperwork with the IRS and SSA, or was it your employer? There are countless more examples.
Make it nearly impossible for all but the under the table types working farm fields and suburban gardens for cash to get a job and collect benefits here. Then we'll talk "pathway to citizenship". Not before.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 29, 2013 07:43 AM (SY2Kh)
those industries break the law willfully now. why should they abide by any new immigration law that hits them for hiring illegals?
---
At some point it can also become unwillful. If i run a landscaping business and follow the law i get underbid on contracts. Now my choices are
a) Go out of business
b) mimic my competitors and hire illegals
the effect of letting the contagion into the system
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at January 29, 2013 07:43 AM (SO2Q8)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 07:43 AM (CBCxo)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 29, 2013 11:32 AM (DuH+r)
Because they've already gotten past the hurdle. The ones being hurt can't vote. (And since they're already following the rules by waiting, I'm going to posit that they won't break the law to vote either.)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 29, 2013 07:43 AM (oG3dE)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 29, 2013 07:44 AM (hjRtO)
Posted by: dananjcon at January 29, 2013 07:44 AM (jvd3N)
And I ask, as I always do when this comes up, what happens to people who are physically unable to serve? Or mentally? And do you really want to create an actual class system? That's pretty much the opposite of the ideals this country was founded on.
Posted by: BCochran1981
<snip> no citizen who wants to enlist can be turned down for any reason, except for lacking the mental competence to understand the decision. The doctor giving Juan his induction physical examination makes this plain:
I asked one of the doctors what percentage of the victims flunked the physical. He looked startled. “Why, we never fail anyone. The law doesn’t permit us to.”
“Huh? I mean, excuse me, Doctor? Then what’s the point of this goose-flesh parade?”
“Why, the purpose is […] to find out what duties you are physically able to perform. […] The only way you can fail is by having the psychiatrists decide that you are not able to understand the oath.” [Ch. II, p.29]
Also, I like the idea of co-ed showers, especially with Dizzy....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 29, 2013 07:44 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 07:45 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 29, 2013 11:42 AM (VtjlW)
Devil's Advocate: The law has never been seriously enforced, and is accepted by a majority of society as a necessary evil. People by and large view it as speeding on a freeway.
I think it's more serious than speeding on the freeway, but that's the way a majority of Americans(even R's!) think about it.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at January 29, 2013 07:45 AM (xAtAj)
Posted by: occam at January 29, 2013 07:45 AM (RzFE8)
Posted by: somebody else, not me at January 29, 2013 07:45 AM (nZvGM)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 29, 2013 07:45 AM (m0v2L)
Right. But. If you knew that voting was contingent upon service would you have done a nominal enlistment to secure your Citizenship?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 07:46 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: rrpjr at January 29, 2013 07:46 AM (hLkX8)
Posted by: DaveA at January 29, 2013 07:46 AM (tAie3)
Mommy why does that Nanny have a English accent?
Posted by: little girl watching Mary Poppins at January 29, 2013 07:46 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 11:41 AM (8y9MW)
Then what's the point? If you're just making up shit for them to do, what's the point of having them do it? I'm assuming that there's supposed to be a benefit to the state. And again, not only are you creating a class/caste system, you're puting the govt in charge of it. What happens when people are found unfit after (for example) they serve 3 years of their 4 year term? Cause I'm sure nothing like that would ever happen. You give the govt control of who gets what rights and I'm sure there will be no abuse.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 07:46 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: t-bird at January 29, 2013 07:46 AM (FcR7P)
You seem to think that deporting individual aliens is the same as mass deportation.
I have absolutely no problem with, as illegals are brought in for whatever reason (often: driving without a license, or driving without insurance), then deporting them. I agree that doing mass round-ups and deportations would be logistically problematic. I could give to rips about it being "politically" problematic.
So, yes: enforce the laws on the books. ICE has limited resources and would have to deploy them responsibly- which would mean no mass deportations anyway. But, yes, individuals should be deported as they break some other law (thus bringing them to our attention).
If that causes many of them not to "pay" taxes (they never pay net taxes though, somehow they always end up making just enough money to qualify for some sweet, sweet benies), I'm fine with that.
What you are claiming is that people like me want to do mass round-ups, and that simply isn't on the table.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 07:46 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 29, 2013 07:46 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: t-bird at January 29, 2013 07:47 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: eman at January 29, 2013 07:47 AM (jp2Ur)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 29, 2013 07:47 AM (9Bj8R)
Hey it's our first five alarm fuckhead of the day....
welcome Occtard....
Hey Occtard why should narcotraficantes and MS-13 get amnesty?
Oh that's right because Amigo!
MS-13 has killed more folks than I have, but I'm a better shot.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:47 AM (LRFds)
Along with #408,
When the majority of a population refuses to obey the law, there is no law.
That is the situation with illegal immigration today, most notably on the border.
It's done. It's over.
Posted by: Who Knows at January 29, 2013 07:47 AM (W+Itt)
Posted by: Vic at January 29, 2013 07:48 AM (53z96)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 07:48 AM (CBCxo)
My only point is that these King-for-a-day fantasies are a waste of mental energy.
Posted by: BSR:
And you are choosing to ignore an example of it being done before in the US, not to mention in other areas such as the Indian Partition, the break-up of Yugoslavia and so on.
Just hand-waving and declaring "it canna be done captain"....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 29, 2013 07:48 AM (kdS6q)
Yawn.....
You know Beck addressed that on at least 3 shows in the past week. Maybe you should bother to listen. Oh that's right your a moonbat troll. No matter what I say you'll ignore it because you aren't here to have a good faith discussion that challenges your point of view. You're here to be an asshole.
Fuckoff.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 07:48 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 29, 2013 07:48 AM (hjRtO)
Posted by: akula51 at January 29, 2013 07:48 AM (YesJa)
1) The status quo is awful, ROL-wise. It's better to enforce the laws, or get them off the books.
2) Americans by and large are against enforcing the immigration laws 100% as they are.
We have to fix this one way or the other. We have to start thinking about how to handle the demographics changes, which are rolling in as the illegal immigrants have anchor babies with full voting rights.
It's coming like it or not.
Sucks, sure. But the game is rigged, no sense in denying it.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at January 29, 2013 07:49 AM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 29, 2013 07:49 AM (Ec6wH)
Fences and wall are like locks. They are devices to keep honest people out unless monitored by someone providing security. Then they act as a time delay to allow security to respond. The better the fence, the few people assets you need.
Who is easier to detect and catch- someone scaling a wall, or someone sneaking through scrub brush at night?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 29, 2013 07:49 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Red State Ricky at January 29, 2013 07:49 AM (SbUMe)
Posted by: Andrew at January 29, 2013 11:40 AM (HS3dy)
lol
Posted by: Heralder at January 29, 2013 07:50 AM (+xmn4)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 07:50 AM (ZKzrr)
That's basically conscription. And as a point I think it would make the military weaker.
Trust me, the military doesn't want me. I'm not worth anything to it.
It may have worked in Starship troopers, I don't think it would work here.
(Although I suppose if you went this route you convert a lot of the DoD civilian jobs to "military" jobs, which mike make it somewhat less bad for the military overall.)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 29, 2013 07:50 AM (oG3dE)
I believe in God-given, or Natural if you prefer, rights. I believe that one of those rights is liberty. Another is the ability to determine (in at least a small way) how I choose to use that liberty. If you deny the right to vote, you've denied my ability to speak and determine how I am governed. I don't support that.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 07:51 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: t-bird at January 29, 2013 07:51 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Andrew at January 29, 2013 11:40 AM (HS3dy)
yeah keep on believing that as the Right gets buried electorally
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 29, 2013 07:52 AM (8sCoq)
No we donÂ’t.
If we did, why are we going through this whole process in the first place?"
thank you
Posted by: Shoey at January 29, 2013 07:52 AM (Y7jCH)
then it is better to burn the thing down and start over.....
not kidding.
Fuck the left.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 07:52 AM (LRFds)
Again, there's the Left that wants to swell their voter rolls and just enough on the Right that are "Chamber Commerce" conservatives that want cheap labor so they can get a bigger McMansion and Escalade. And you combine that with delusional Republicans like the Bush family that have this idiotic idea that once we get Amnesty, the hispanics will suddenly become to the GOP what blacks are to the Democrat Party, nevermind immigration is not an issue in Central and South America yet most of the countries are left wing shit holes.
Posted by: McAdams at January 29, 2013 07:52 AM (J/+6n)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 29, 2013 07:52 AM (9Bj8R)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 29, 2013 07:53 AM (VtjlW)
Service as a prerequisite for Citizenship is not a new idea. The Swiss, the only nation in Europe that trusts their Citizenry to have guns use conscription.
Military dictatorships revolve around those in current service as officers run the show.
Comparing that to any successfully completed term of service grants rights to vote and otherwise participate in government is disingenuous or ignorant.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 07:53 AM (0q2P7)
Have you read Starship Troopers? Because it explains it in there.
Quickly, however: the theory (to give it so lofty a term) is that someone who has had to earn the Franchise will care for it more than someone to whom it is merely "given." The benefit to the state is that only people who value their citizenship enough to stick out their assignments will then earn the privilege of the vote.. That "uncomfortable, difficult, and often boring" is important.
Since the people who vote had to earn it- by "uncomfortable, difficult, and often boring" (when it isn't down right dangerous/deadly) means, they are more likely (and even Heinlein admits this is far from a guarantee) to place the needs of society- including individual liberty and the benefits to society that come with it- over their own desires.
Like I said, I'm okay with that approach. I'm also okay with having to pay (net) taxes to get to vote. Whatever we do, a "universal" franchise is a silly, even childish idea.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 07:53 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at January 29, 2013 07:53 AM (hzV1U)
I am amazed that people don't get this. The issue is not that you are a jerk for thinking that is the best solution. It would be a very neat and tidy solution, if it were doable.
The issue is that actually accomplishing mass deportation is, politically speaking, a masturbatory pipe dream. We need to focus on locking down the borders FOR REAL and generally forget about those who got past the law. That ship has sailed, and we lost that battle years ago when they came in illegally.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 07:53 AM (kuRCh)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 29, 2013 11:49 AM (SY2Kh)
I forget, why can't me mine the boarder again? Listen people would say "it's so cruel!" but choices have consequences, and choosing to cross a minefield means you have to deal with the consequences of dying.
(I said something similar when I read an article that was whining about how hard crossing the boarder was, and as we locked down easier crossing people had to resort to harder ones. No one is forcing you to take the crazy, stupid, likely to kill you risk.)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 29, 2013 07:53 AM (oG3dE)
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at January 29, 2013 07:53 AM (9+ccr)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 07:53 AM (CBCxo)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 07:53 AM (ZKzrr)
Two reasons:
1. It isn't working.
2. Filling out an I-9 and sticking it in their filing cabinet for three years does nothing to reliably identify illegals.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 29, 2013 07:55 AM (SY2Kh)
Then serve and get your right to vote. If it's too much of a bother than being able to vote is too much of a bother.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 07:55 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: McAdams at January 29, 2013 11:52 AM (J/+6n)
I think the tax code is weaponized enough already. It's a decent idea, I just don't like handing the IRS more bullets.
Posted by: Heralder at January 29, 2013 07:56 AM (+xmn4)
Posted by: 7th c. BC Chinese at January 29, 2013 07:56 AM (NWLVJ)
----
I though Napolitano already declared it more secure than ever. I see no need for another committee/commission.
Posted by: RioBravo at January 29, 2013 07:57 AM (eEfYn)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 29, 2013 07:57 AM (VtjlW)
"EV options have 180% to 290% greater HTP impacts compared to the ICEV..."
WTF?! Cut that shit out. Fucking irritating as hell. Type the fucking words. The abbreviations don't make you look smarter than me.
Posted by: Dang at January 29, 2013 07:58 AM (R18D0)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the constitution disagree with you on this point? So either start proposing amendments, or face it, not gonna happen.
In any case, there are also alternate theories as to why people disrespect the franchise. "Democracy Surplus" is currently my running favorite. I think it makes more sense than "you didn't work for it."
Arguably I didn't work for my franchise either (I pay taxes, but that's about it.) Yet I still put more thought into my vote than several of my friends in the military who vote surprisingly left "for the children" or some such.
And certainly more so than Warren Buffet (who pays a large tax bill.)
Conditioning the franchise on something else won't solve our problems, I doubt it'd even put a dent in them. It's a flawed theory with 0 evidence.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 29, 2013 07:58 AM (oG3dE)
Hhahahahahahahahahahaha. So shuffling papers for 4 years suddenly makes people liberty lovers?
Like I said, I'm okay with that approach. I'm also okay with having to pay (net) taxes to get to vote. Whatever we do, a "universal" franchise is a silly, even childish idea.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 11:53 AM (8y9MW)
I reject, utterly and completely, any idea that puts the govt in control of whether or not I have a say in how I am governed. Govt is (supposed to be) at the behest of the people. I don't have to jump through hoops for it. It serves me. I don't serve it.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 07:59 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 29, 2013 08:00 AM (GlnE7)
A thumbnail sketch of a history lesson that could never be repeated:
Burgeoning numbers of Mexican migrants prompted President Eisenhower to appoint General Joseph Swing as INS Commissioner. According to AttorneyGeneral Herbert Brownell, Jr. Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration upon taking office. In a letter to Senator J. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."
The effort began in California and Arizona in 1954 and coordinated 1,075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies. Tactics employed included going house to house in Mexican-American neighborhoods and citizenship checks during standard traffic stops.
Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 illegal aliens were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal aliens are believed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their own accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory before releasing them.
Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships: the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 km) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles (1,600 km). Deportation by sea was ended after seven deportees jumped overboard from the Mercurio and drowned, provoking a mutiny that led to a public outcry in Mexico.
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 08:00 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: Red State Ricky at January 29, 2013 08:00 AM (SbUMe)
People need to start at the beginning.
Why does anyone want to keep immigrants out of the U.S.?
If changes can be made to address those concerns, would you still oppose letting anyone who wanted to immigrate do so?
Posted by: jwest at January 29, 2013 08:00 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 08:00 AM (CBCxo)
Understand something....if the Mexicans bring that LA race war crap to Indiana or Ohio they're going home in body bags.
"Senor we are reconquisitng our sacred homeland of Oyo." means fuckall to me.....
if the Shawnee or the Miami come ask it is a little different.
They are not coming to play nice amigo they are coming to take and are here by their culture's rules as felons already....
this same government that wants to flood me out wants my guns?
Lo siento not happening.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 08:00 AM (LRFds)
If we're still looking at the SST model, it goes even further- no one, while still enlisted is a citizen. Citizenship (and therefore the vote) is only granted on satisfactory completion of service. As he points out, that means there are old men who have served for decades (in the book) who couldn't vote, while other young men, who served only a single term could.
Of course, the other thing about this little fantasy scenario: the Federation in SST only arose after a third world war, and a complete societal collapse which occurred immediately after.
By the time Juan Rico was recounting his story, society had settled in such that no one living remembered America as it had existed.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 08:01 AM (8y9MW)
Since the legislation is intended to solve the current illegal immigration problem for those deemed worthy of its benefits, will the legislation also make it a federal crime for city, state and local officials to interfere with future efforts to enforce immigration laws against future illegal immigrants. How about making it a felony for any state, city or local official to make their city a sanctuary city or to provide licenses or benefits to illegal aliens or require police to enforce immigration laws by reporting illegals to ICE.
I'm old enough to remember when Reagan signed the last immigration bill that would solve these hardship cases and prevent future immigration problems. That was 11 milllion illegals ago. If there is a serious intent to fix the problem, make it a felony for government officials to not enforce the law, or better yet create a private right of action allowing individuals to sue those officials. The plaintiff's bar would love that.
Posted by: rbattman at January 29, 2013 08:01 AM (tLk+e)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 29, 2013 08:01 AM (9Bj8R)
why do we need E-verify if we already require employers to fill out an I-9?
Employers are held responsible for verifying, to a reasonable extent, the information on the I-9. If Homeland Security does an audit and an employee comes up with bum info, both the employee and employer get hit.
E-Verify is just a tool to allow employers to more easily check that information upfront.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 29, 2013 08:02 AM (kdS6q)
My God, what on earth are you talking about? Deportation of all illegal immigrants is precisely what you are talking about, or else you don't know what you are talking about. But it is definitely "on the table", so stop being cute. The 11 million (or whatever number) illegal aliens broke the law when they entered the country, and they break the law again when they get jobs, drive a car, or do anything else that is regulated by government. Enforcing the law on books means deporting them for such violations.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 08:02 AM (kuRCh)
Posted by: DKCZ at January 29, 2013 08:03 AM (9/bcB)
People need to start at the beginning.
Why does anyone want to keep immigrants out of the U.S.?
Posted by: jwest at January 29, 2013 12:00 PM (ZDsRL)
You need to start by asking the right question. It's not about immigrants or immigration, it is about tens of millions of illegal inhabitants.
Posted by: Heralder at January 29, 2013 08:03 AM (+xmn4)
In the past, people came here to be Americans. Now they come here to continue being muslims or Mexicans or Somalis or what have you at our expense
enough
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 29, 2013 08:03 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 08:03 AM (CBCxo)
si jose it's cut the gringo thinks we will ever have this argument again.....
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 08:04 AM (LRFds)
That's a cut/paste quote from the study.
I thought link's text " EV car production more toxic to humans & environment than ICE" made the context clear. EV=electric vehicle, ICE=internal combustion engine.
Sidebar screen real estate is precious.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 29, 2013 08:04 AM (GlnE7)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 29, 2013 08:04 AM (9Bj8R)
Posted by: Jean at January 29, 2013 08:04 AM (z6Elp)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 08:05 AM (CBCxo)
I agree the IRS is too omnipotent, but that train left the station a long time ago. Might as well get some benefit out of it.
But if you got the IRS involved, jobs for illegal aliens would just the menial stuff like it used to be : hard manual labor for cash under the table. Then it's a controllable problem.
Posted by: McAdams at January 29, 2013 08:05 AM (J/+6n)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 11:55 AM (0q2P7)
You do not get to decide what rights I have. The govt does not get to decide what rights I have. This country was based upon the idea of Natural Rights. Those rights are inherent. They cannot/should not be awarded or taken away by man/govt.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 08:05 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Meadow Party 2016 at January 29, 2013 08:05 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Dante at January 29, 2013 08:05 AM (NWLVJ)
Posted by: Red State Ricky at January 29, 2013 11:49 AM
"Unintended Consequences" is not a term that politicians, hacks, and other elitists are familiar with.
Unless it causes them to lose re-election or a lot of money
Posted by: kbdabear at January 29, 2013 08:05 AM (wwsoB)
Actually, it does no such thing. "Voting age" is governed by statute, not amendment. We could change the voting age to 21 tomorrow, and there is no Constitutional argument against it.
Also, we're talking completely theoretically, here. If you want me to propose my ideal society (never a good idea), I'll need more space.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 11:59 AM (da5Wo)
1st: Barrel.
2nd: You already are. Government sets the voting age. Government sets the rules that govern who can run (in effect if not in statute). Government decides when elections will be held.
The franchise is already limited by the (to my mind, absurd) distinction of age, as though turning 18 suddenly makes one capable of making sound decisions regarding the course of the country.
It's the worst possible solution, except for all the others that have been tried.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 08:06 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 12:01 PM (8y9MW)
I think this alone points out the obvious contradiction in the entire idea.
If we're suggesting that people will better appreciate their franchise after serving, wouldn't it then follow that people who continued to serve would appreciate it even more, yet in the SST model they can't vote.
Disagree with the positive argument in Plato's Republic all you want, but the negative arguments against the various other forms of government are spot on, and Meritocracy is on that list.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 29, 2013 08:06 AM (oG3dE)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 08:07 AM (wbmaj)
Yes this is looking down the road and would require amendments. So what exactly? I'm looking down the barrel at a failed state right now, talking about how we "do it better next time" when the Constitution for the Texan States of America gets drafted is a good discussion. Hell the lefties are already zeroing in on the their Moonbat Constitution of Why-Do-We-Bother-To-Write-It-Down-Because-We'll-Just-Ignore-It-If-Inconvenient.
We need to look down the road at what went wrong. Why we weren't able to keep our freedom. Long term changes have to happen. Universal suffrage was a bad idea as far as I can see. I wait for someone to explain to me in theory how we can get the majority of the US to vote against their individual interests for the public good?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 08:07 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: 80sBaby at January 29, 2013 08:07 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: Red State Ricky at January 29, 2013 08:08 AM (SbUMe)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Meadow Party 2016 at January 29, 2013 08:08 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: BSR: Live from Falls Church at January 29, 2013 08:08 AM (CBCxo)
E-Verify is just a tool to allow employers to more easily check that information upfront.
----
Maybe. But e-verify is an additional burden imposed by the federal government on hiring employees. We should resist imposting additional burdens, particularly when there is already a similar burden in place. Further, how soon will employers get an answer back. Who willl give them that answer. Do we want to spend more money to do this. Will it really solve the problem? My guess is no. Therefore, I don't think the added burdens make this agood idea.
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 08:09 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: eman at January 29, 2013 08:09 AM (jp2Ur)
Sorry, I didn't mean that as a personal attack. But it did come off rather snotty, sorry about that.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 08:10 AM (kuRCh)
"In the past, people came here to be Americans. Now they come here to continue being muslims or Mexicans or Somalis or what have you at our expense"
So, any solution should include a provision that all immigrants need to learn english, all education, signage, documents etc. be in english, correct?
Posted by: jwest at January 29, 2013 08:10 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 12:07 PM (0q2P7)
You can't and you won't. Human nature is self absorbed and self interested. Every country will face a point in which people's self interested decision making brings it to the point of destruction. And then you must start the process over again. Hence, "watering the tree."
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 08:11 AM (da5Wo)
also I would do away with voting by mail or online, except for active duty military
Voting in open elections is one of our greatest and hard-won freedoms. The least one can do is get off one's ass and show up in person on the day.
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 29, 2013 08:11 AM (8sCoq)
Don't twist my words.
Voting age is governed by statute, that is true. But the subset of people within the age group set by the statute is not.
The framers specifically decided against using Property ownership as a limiting factor for voting. All we're doing is talking about throwing it (or something else) back in.
Let's face it, spin it how you want, but requiring taxes or military service is a poll tax, plain and simple. And while it sounds good on it's face, it's riddled with problems and rife for people using it to control the government to their ends. (Which is what the fucking poll tax was designed to do in the first place, GASP!)
Heck why not just go head and make it so only people who own real estate can vote? Sure I wouldn't have been able to vote until this year, but it would totally stop the FSA from voting.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 29, 2013 08:11 AM (oG3dE)
plus Islanders like the status quo they get a lot of perks and less burdens.
I may move to PR a matter of fact if I decide CONUS in a zoo and no other nation will have me...PR has their Latin mafia problems but it is mostly orderly.....
we're importing MS-13 and narcotrafficantes soon mi amigo.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 08:11 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: jwest at January 29, 2013 12:10 PM
RAAAAAACCCCCISSSSSTTTT !!!
Posted by: CA Democrat Party at January 29, 2013 08:13 AM (wwsoB)
You keep conflating individual deportations (as when illegals are caught driving without a license) and mass deportation (as in when ICE agents start rounding up every illegal they can find, and put them on buses or airplanes back to their country of origin). The two are very different, and no one is suggesting the latter, while no one is denying that the former is necessary.
I don't know if you're not getting it because I'm not being clear, or if you're choosing not to get it.
I'm all for deporting an illegal alien who is found for some other violation. That's "enforcing current law." It's the same way we enforce the current speed limit laws, or current littering laws, or even current tax-fraud laws. We catch the ones we can as we find them, and then deal with them.
I do not support, until other things are handled (if then), simply descending on areas in a systematic manner, and checking every person's legal residency status, then deporting the ones we find who can't prove they're here legally.
Again, the two are very different, both qualitatively and quantitatively. They are different "types" of deportation, as well as different logistically.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 08:13 AM (8y9MW)
really then why the rulings against poll tax?
Look there is a reason why Maine invokes when a person speaks at a townhall "I am a taxpayer."
and there is something to that....
Free Shit Army does not give two fucks about American greatness beyond free shit.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 08:14 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: The Law of Unintended Consequences at January 29, 2013 12:09 PM
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
Posted by: The Devil at January 29, 2013 08:15 AM (wwsoB)
This whole bill is nothing but a scam. Dear Leader has already said he's not going to sign it. Doesn't give Juan El Guapo enough. This is theater by the dems to stir up racial tension. Nothing else.
Even here on AoSHQ, many seem to forget who the preezy and the dems really are. Marxists don't want peace. They've got to keep agitatin' until the takeover is complete.
Posted by: Soona at January 29, 2013 08:15 AM (Kk3Lm)
Wouldn't it be hilarious if the JEF comes out tomorrow with his own idea of a bill that's even more monstrous and totally blows this up? Just think - that way he can continue to demogogue Republicans as being obstructionists to his (and only his, natch) means of doing things "for the children."
And the lefts have a fit when we compare him to fascists of the past. /shocking
Posted by: sans_sheriff at January 29, 2013 08:15 AM (OQHM+)
I wonder how many Americans will die waiting in line, for life saving treatments behind the younger , healthier , "foreign residents".
Posted by: The Law of Unintended Consequences at January 29, 2013 08:16 AM (EZl54)
Posted by: SH at January 29, 2013 08:17 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 12:10 PM (kuRCh)
You keep avoiding the self deportation tools and actual enforcement of deportation of those that break the law. You also seem to think that its an all or nothing proposal. Deporting 50% would go a long way in getting the support needed for immigration reform that allows for a path to citizenship.
Posted by: polynikes at January 29, 2013 08:17 AM (m2CN7)
Universal suffrage or the Kings living as common men is not a God Given right to humanity. It is a right of the sovereign. One that has to be earned under God's law of sovereignty. Which means struggle is on the table. Go conquer your own dirt if you want to be King. As governance is not simply defending your own interests but also determining the service or assault to the interest of others through force of law and military might; as such it is not encapsulated in your "right to be free" as a right to be free does not carry the right to subjugate others as a rider.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 08:17 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Fox2! at January 29, 2013 08:18 AM (1Qpmy)
Bartender asks....
"What'll it be, Mr. President?"
Posted by: grease monkey at January 29, 2013 08:20 AM (VSWPU)
AllenG: if we started deporting every illegal who was pulled over for a traffic stop or for any other infraction or crime, that would mean deportation on a massive scale. But that would not be mass deportation? Please. Being coy is not the same as being smart.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 08:21 AM (kuRCh)
You lost me, I was making the point that there is precedent for not requiring various other conditions to vote.
I agree about the FSA, but the route to fix it is not to totally fuck with the franchise to the point that it's not longer a franchise.
Listen it boils down to this: Either I have a right to participate in government that transcends government's power to grant (i.e. a natural right) or all rights are conferred by government and as such subject to manipulation by government. The latter of course means that the power in power can simply craft the rules needed to keep themselves in power. If government gets to decide who can and can't vote on anything other than age, we're in for a peck of trouble.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 29, 2013 08:21 AM (oG3dE)
Yet they had no problem limiting it by race, or gender. Both of those things had to be removed by amendments.
I think you're conflating the privilege of the Franchise with a "right." Same goes for BC.
Understand that the Founders did not see voting as a "right." All people, regardless of race, creed, gender, voting status, or even citizenship could "petition the government for redress of grievances," or "peaceably assemble." All people, regardless of race, creed, gender, voting status, or even citizenship had the right to "keep and bear arms" (as far as the Federal Government was concerned, anyway).
They issued no such protections for voting. Those came later via constitutional amendment. You can certainly argue that they were appropriate; I wouldn't disagree. But to claim that the Government doesn't already set the rules for the franchise denies reality.
If voting is a "right" then we are limiting others "rights" by saying they can't vote because (for instance) they're felons. Or illegal aliens. Or legal aliens who haven't become citizens yet. Or whatever.
Rights are universal- which is why they are not granted by any Government. Privileges can be given, taken away, or regulated by the State.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 08:22 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Red State Ricky at January 29, 2013 08:22 AM (SbUMe)
It wouldn't be much of a burden compared to all the forms they already must fill out and submit.
Employers are already required to check and record ID documents; filling out a web form or making a phone call wouldn't be prohibitively time consuming or expensive.
Again- ever bought a gun from a dealer? If they can perform a federal background check in 5 minutes, so can an employer.
No, something like E-Verify wouldn't stop every housekeeper working for cash under the table, but it would help.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 29, 2013 08:22 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 29, 2013 12:11 PM (oG3dE)
Yeah you may not have been able to vote but the people who would have would have been aware of the consequences of their vote by virtue of that specific qualification and the outcome I would expect would have been one you would have agreed with until such time as to when you could qualify.
Qualifications to vote are already present. Expanding those qualifications is the issue.
Posted by: polynikes at January 29, 2013 08:23 AM (m2CN7)
Actually, it does no such thing. "Voting age" is governed by statute, not amendment.
Dude?
Twenty-sixth Amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 29, 2013 08:23 AM (kdS6q)
So too can the exact words be spoken of universal suffrage.
The difference is that no credible theory has been promulgated that says universal suffrage is workable.
That's why I favor instead of using taxes use service. Devote your time if you want to vote. That is not a poll tax, if it can reasonably be completed by anybody who cares to do it, with the same effort regardless of social status.
Consider it a really long voter registration process.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 08:23 AM (0q2P7)
Yes, but in the meantime, more illegals keep coming in. We can get hung up on those who have already beat the system, or stop the epidemic from continuing to happen. After that, I am all for different means of encouraging/forcing some to leave the country. But getting rid of all illegals is a pipe dream.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 08:24 AM (kuRCh)
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 29, 2013 08:26 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: GalosGann at January 29, 2013 08:27 AM (T3KlW)
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 12:24 PM (kuRCh)
again with the 'all ' .
Posted by: polynikes at January 29, 2013 08:28 AM (m2CN7)
Many (most?) of them would self deport when the free shit stops flowing. Most of the rest? Yeah, I agree with you. We enforce the law as much as we are reasonably able. At this point, there is no way we would be "reasonably able" to round-up and deport the rest, and it would be the height of irresponsibility to grant them any legal status.
AllenG: if we started deporting every illegal who was pulled over for a traffic stop or for any other infraction or crime, that would mean deportation on a massive scale. But that would not be mass deportation? Please. Being coy is not the same as being smart.
So war is mass-murder? I said "qualitatively" different as well as quantitatively. Yes, we'd be deporting "on a massive scale," because that's what happens when you get around to finally enforcing a law you've been ignoring for decades.
But perhaps you take offense to the "war is mass-murder" comparison (though I do think it's valid). We send people to jail (or sentence them to lesser penalties) for drunken driving "on a massive scale," does that mean (besides the holiday road-blocks, which I believe violate the 4th Amendment) that we have "mass drunk driving enforcement?"
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 08:28 AM (8y9MW)
D*mn. I keep forgetting that one. Largely because it was passed in my parents' lifetime, and it just seems weird to me.
But, even so- the point remains. Until the 26th Amendment, the voting age had been governed by Statute. And no-one said "boo" about it for a very long time.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 08:30 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: eman at January 29, 2013 08:31 AM (jp2Ur)
Posted by: zombie thomas jefferson at January 29, 2013 08:32 AM (ORGYc)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 29, 2013 11:49 AM (Ec6wH)
When employing an inherently unsustainable social and economic model, outcome is predictable. I'm no prophet, but I'd guess economic catastrophe is coming sooner than most people think. That trillion-dollar platinum coin idea was a giveaway, especially given the reaction of Krugman and other supposedly serious economists and financial experts, all of whom promoted the idea to one degree or another and all of whom were/are members of the Progressive Left. When a wildly desperate financial gambit is entertained by those close to the seat of power, then one can only guess at the genuine panic going on behind the scenes. This economic crisis is coming at speed and will be on us in months, not years. Rising inflation and real unemployment, hidden as much as possible by government and media the last few years, will explode and there will be no way to hide it any more.
I give it two years, at most. Perhaps that explains the low-profile, go along and get along approach advocated by Ryan and others in GOP leadership circles. They know the numbers as well as anyone. Maybe what they're doing is the political equivalent of keeping their heads down just before blast.
Posted by: troyriser at January 29, 2013 08:32 AM (vtiE6)
Person deemed unfit for physical duty so they spend their time as a paper pusher. I have no idea how this would make them appreciate their citizenship/rights more. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect. They've had to go through years of drudgery to achieve their goal. And in the end, what have they sacrificed to achieve their citizenship? What values were instilled in them through paperwork?
Now you have the person who is deemed fit and serves in a combat role. He risks life and limb in order to get the exact same thing that the guy who sat on his ass got. He will have nothing but contempt for the paper pusher and likely despise the system that allowed it to happen.
How is this better?
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 29, 2013 08:33 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: Joe in MI at January 29, 2013 08:34 AM (3R8wQ)
not being cryptic at all....
hey guess what US fucking citizenship either means something or it doesn't....well evidently it doesn't so let's just abolish the INS throw open the doors and smile and say "we're all Americans now" to EVERYONE who makes it here....
handing a mexican national who still flied the mexican flag and still votes in mexico whose Mexican official tells them how they should probably vote in PSAs on Telemundo is just as if not more retarded.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 08:39 AM (LRFds)
AllenG: your comparison is silly because killing in war is not equivalent to murder. Honestly, you are trying to be too clever. You said "You keep conflating individual deportations...and mass deportation". A massive number of individual deportations is, by definition, mass deportation. You may have different ideas on how it could potentially be carried out, but the English language remains what it is.
Posted by: dan-O at January 29, 2013 08:42 AM (kuRCh)
Posted by: Fox2! at January 29, 2013 08:45 AM (1Qpmy)
Posted by: Andrew at January 29, 2013 08:45 AM (HS3dy)
Better yet is to turn "Rubio" into a pejorative part of speech, as in "That proposal's just too Rubio" and "Don't Rubio your constituents"
Posted by: Peter at January 29, 2013 08:45 AM (GUcJW)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15border.html
I can't make this shit up.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 29, 2013 11:08 AM (ZKzrr)
Parasites seeking a new host. They aren't escaping, because we aren't holding them captive, and truth be told, only the Left here really want them (as long as they stay in their own neighborhoods, of course). They just don't like the terms under which they allowed to remain in Canada.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at January 29, 2013 08:47 AM (29+x5)
The reason (way back up thread) I hesitated to give the SST model even the name "theory."
But, the practical answer is: "you don't." And then you just hope you get enough people who do appreciate their own sacrifice for their Franchise that they outweigh the rest.
A massive number of individual deportations is, by definition, mass deportation. You may have different ideas on how it could potentially be carried out, but the English language remains what it is.
Now you're the one trying to be "too clever." We work within the limits of the language we have, and connotation is often as important as (and sometimes more important than) denotation.
Moreover, I have clarified exactly what I mean by using the term "Mass deportation," and why I believe it is qualitatively different from incidental migration which happens to occur "on a massive scale" (I actually don't think it would, btw- I think most would self deport if they saw real enforcement coming down the pipe).
That's also why I provided an alternative example. Is the fact that our court system is positively inundated with drunk (or other impaired) driving cases proof that we have "mass enforcement" of those laws, or is it simply the fact we catch that many?
When someone claims opponents of amnesty want "to deport all 11 million" they are referring to my definition of "mass deportation," not simply actually deporting illegals when found, but seeking them out and loading them up on some convoy of buses and airplanes. It is either naive or disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 08:51 AM (8y9MW)
Yup...no I respect your guys' system I just hate your left's hypocrisy towards my nation on the same matter.
I want to work, and help an organized group succeed at a set of tasks and missions.
I am not evil.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 29, 2013 09:06 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 29, 2013 11:34 AM (0q2P7)
By making anonymous phone calls to 911, of course.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at January 29, 2013 09:12 AM (29+x5)
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 29, 2013 09:20 AM (NWGUG)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 29, 2013 11:53
In one sentence: "You have to have skin in the game if you want to have a say in how it's played."
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at January 29, 2013 09:37 AM (29+x5)
If they aren't going to fight back now the people should be able to fight back when necessary.
Posted by: WheelmanForHire at January 29, 2013 09:44 AM (l8nIR)
Posted by: Capt. Obvious at January 29, 2013 02:28 PM (oyQVv)
Posted by: CBrown at January 29, 2013 03:59 PM (xsGW+)
Sounds like what happens to Republicans on budget battles. They agree to future "cuts" for taxes now, and those cuts either don't happen, or turn out not to be actual cuts at all.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 30, 2013 02:49 PM (vd7A8)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3513 seconds, 683 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 29, 2013 06:32 AM (wbmaj)