Why isn't repbulican congress fixing immigration?

How would that stop greedy employers looking to keep more of the income pie for themselves?

There is a crew of 17 here where I live, building one of these motel chains. I know the foreman, an old friend, who told me not a single one can speak English, and all are illegal aliens who have worked for this company for years. The company knows they are illegal, and do not care. These workers are making the same wages as American construction workers made, doing the same job, 30 years ago. That is why businesses employ them. And they would get around e verify, as they are breaking the laws today in hiring them.

Now, you could tie e verify with making the laws more harsh towards employers. If one gets caught working unlawful people, its a year in jail mandatory for the owner and a good sized fine. Then have toll free numbers where we could call in and report the law breakers. This would solve it overnight, unless the politicians got sneaky and would not fund enforcement enough so it works, which is one of their little dirty tricks so they can tell us one thing, act like they are doing something, when they never intended to do so. LOL.

Neither the GOP nor the Dems want to take away cheap labor that takes our jobs and depresses our wages at the same time. For they only represent the lawbreaking employers, the corporations. This isn't something I am making up. Hell, all that you need to see the obvious are eyes and the a brain that can think logically.

But you guys will still vote your tribe back in, time and time again. To repeat the same action expecting different results is insanity. Before we can fix what both parties broke, one has to be able to see that neither side, by their actions, prove they want to fix anything that is a problem.

 

Why must you torture and mangle the facts to the point of being absurd (Should they therefore be considered criminals in the same sense as murderers?)(vikings)(being cut in half). What nonsense. Can you argue on the merits of the situation without the ridiculous meanderings?
Probably not.

 

I see the chip has gotten bigger.

I'm not at all interested in your analogies.

I commented to someone who doesn't know that illegal is the same as criminal.

Your little fantasies about Rosa and "sand people" are not my concern

 

Just turn Midway Island into an Immigration Detention Center. Anyone caught illegally in the U.S. off to Midway with ya till your status is resolved.

 

And both are supposed to show up when the Shia are about to fall to the final assault. As I said you have provided a difference that lacks much of a distinction.

 

Not a final assault of their making.

 

Yeah, well they were kind of busy. Preventing a second great depression, fixing healthcare (something that's been on our nation's to do list for 50 years, signing a strategic arms control treaty with the Russians... and in any case it wasn't anywhere near a full term. They only had 2009 and the beginning of 2010 to work before the politics of the midterm stopped anything more. Is it all right with you if they only move one mountain at a time?

Besides, it's Tea Party types like you who've virtually shut down the government and been trying to burn the country to the ground for the last five years. And then you have the gall to complain about things not getting done? You don't get to complain about problems that you deliberately caused.

Hmmm, let's see. Unscrupulous employers are exploiting people who can't turn to the government for help because an absurd law makes them liable to be deported if they do so. Gee, here's a thought, how about give them all green cards and get them unionized? You know, give workers actual rights and power? :O

I really don't get it. Republicans with an economic populist streak complain constantly about the big corporations having too much power and exploiting the middle and lower classes, but you then turn around and fight any policy that might improve the situation tooth and nail. We can't improve employee protections because that's regulation. We can't have unions because... well, I've never actually heard any of you explain why you think unions are evil. And of course we can't even entertain the thought of taxing those corporations and the very wealthy individuals that run them to pay for programs to help the people they're exploiting.

... -_-; Do you have any idea what a double handed battle ax does to the human body?

Anyway, I'm not the one who brought up Vikings - I was responding to rocker65 saying,

" It is not the job or responsibility of the country being pillaged by remittances, to cure poverty in the country that is sending its migrants (international burglars) into your country to plunder it. Quite the contrary, it is the responsibility of the US public officials to deter other countries from engaging in this 21st century parallel to medieval Viking invasions."​

If you're complaining about the absurdity of bringing Vikings into a discussion about immigration, that's exactly what I was trying to point out.

Nativists typically use the fact that being an undocumented worker means by definition that one has broken immigration law to try to equate immigrants with murders, rapists, drug dealers and so forth. That argument is what's absurd and ridiculous here, not me rebutting it.

At what point have I mangled or tortured any fact in any way? If you think what I'm saying is factually wrong then show me. And if you have the facts to back you up, I'll change what I say and apologize for making a mistake. But if you're simply put out that I'm challenging the racist lies spewed by the likes of Trump, you're going to have a very hard time finding any facts to back you up at all.

BTW, putting a pro-slavery symbol in your avatar is not a good way to get people to talk to you rationally and calmly.

(shrugs) If I have a chip on my shoulder it's because I'm tired of people spewing vile hate and bigotry and then looking all wide eyed and innocent when accused of racism. I make no apologies for the fact that irritates me.

You're not interested in my analogies? Then you're conceding that you have no rebuttal of any kind for what I said?

Illegal is not the same as criminal. The word "criminal" implies a serious offense. Driving 5 mph over the speed limit is illegal. Does that mean it's justified to insist on calling someone who did that once twenty years ago a criminal in the same breath as you're talking about rapists and murders? No, not even close to justified, and you know it. An implicit statement designed to create a misleading impression is still a lie even if the explicit phrasing carefully avoids any literal violations of the truth.

If you know your position is indefensible the decent thing to do is withdraw from the argument. Or concede the point. Or you could always keep talking and make yourself look like a total fool while I mock you mercilessly, that works for me too.

Wait, I'm sorry if I'm confused, but did you just suggest sending 12 million people to Midway Island?

 

Lol! This whole post is the perfect example of not doing one's homework. Here is the exact quote from Politifact; "The Pew Hispanic Center estimated the illegal immigrant 'POPULATION' nationwide to be 11.2 million. During Bush's eight year tenure there was an average of 10.6 million. If Bush deported 10.3 million, that means only .3 million were left. So, here's the thing. That looks like some sort of Breitbart study to me you are posting, because those figures are totally laughable. Politifact says there is a total population of 11. 2 million. That means according to your study, hardly anyone should be left. I don't know where you live, but from what I've been seeing, there hasn't been much of a shortage of brown folks walking around.

As to the rest of your comments, you were saying something about inept?

 

And I make no apologies for the fact that spewing at people and calling them hateful bigots only makes them more racist.

No. I'm conceding that thankfully, due to the wonder of forum features, I no longer have to read your goofy analogies.

 

Are you suggesting all 12 million are criminals?

 

you make it mandatory.

 

So I guess none actually tried to come in or got in during Bush's whole term. Hell Bill Clinton deported a total of 12M that should have meant that Bush could have completely ignored illegal immigrants all together because there should have been none, right?

Yea, inept fits you to a T.

 

And where does it specifically say that. Hell given most of what it says in Sura and other Chapters in the Koran and the doctrine of Abnegation Islam is always going to be at war either openly or secretly with all non Muslims. As I said before ISIS isn't the first set to the West has had with Islam. The nearest Miss they had was just outside the gates of Vienna in 1683, when Jan Silbieski and a 100k Poles threw the Ottomans back from the Gates of Vienna, the last one was stomped flat by Kitchener not too far from Cairo.

 

LOL Can't stand the heat, huh?

You know what? So long as you're honest that you're just being racist, I'm satisfied.

When I said I'm confused, I wasn't being rhetorical. I'm pretty sure there's some context to your post way back in the thread that I missed. And following the chain of post quotes didn't really help.

As for whether all 12 million are criminals, that depends on which definition of "criminal" you're using. If you mean real criminals that have actually committed serious crimes, obviously not. On the other hand, if you're using "criminal" as a slur for anyone who defies the current immigration law, then equally obviously, by definition, they are.

The reason I asked is because Midway's only two and a half square miles.

Just a suggestion, but next time you might want to try looking up the real numbers instead of just taking the word of the lobbying arm of some nativist group. If you check DHS's site, you can find statistics on immigration and deportations going back to 1892. The truth is that deportations rose from 359,795 in 2008 to 438,421 in 2013. Incidentally, they fell again to 315,943 for 2014. See what happens when you refuse to negotiate in good faith? Here are the full stats for the Bush and Obama years:

2001 189,026
2002 165,168
2003 211,098
2004 240,665
2005 246,431
2006 280,974
2007 319,382
2008 359,795
2009 391,597
2010 382,265
2011 387,134
2012 418,397
2013 438,421

 

As expected, you've liquidated your own argument, so as to try again to switch the conversation to a question about Bush, while excusing yourself from the facts I presented. Lol! You aren't that clever as to be excused yet from the original argument. You said Politifact said some 10 million were deported. I quoted that some 10 million was the total population in the U.S., according to Politifact. YOU WERE WONG. So, no challenge to the Politifact link that you said was deporting some 10 million, when it actually says it's the whole population? Lol! I didn't think so. And you are the one who thinks you can afford to talk about others being inept. Lol! That's a good one.

 

I may not be a whiz kid at math, but that looks like a lot less than the 10 something million figure Liquid's been floating around, that Bush has deported?

 

2,012,539 for the whole eight years of the Bush Administration. 2,333,757 for the first six years of Obama's Presidency. It's also worth noting that in the breakdown for the 2014 numbers, two thirds (213,719) of the deportations were people caught at the border. I don't know what the breakdown for previous years is, but it looks like either Obama has been catching a lot more people at the border or Bush was hardly deporting anyone from the interior.

 

I'll note that being here without papers is not a crime - it is a civil misdemeanor.

And, let's remember that nearly half (more than 40%) of those here on a permanent basis without papers did NOT sneak across the border.

So - what crime did they commit?

Or, are you just saying that people call it a crime even though it is not a crime?

 

Because Obama has CLEARLY stated he will not sign republican legislation.... Republicans have introduced plenty of immigration bills....

Besides, we don't NEED immigration legislation - we NEED to enforce our present immigration laws which the tyrant in the white house is refusing to do....

 

Being in the US illegally IS a crime, and an illegal CAN be deported for being here illegally - they just can't be deported without due process.

Yes, the majority did in fact jump the border, but hey it's difficult to count considering the illegals that jumped the border don't exist on paper, however being from a highly populated latino area I can tell you that 90% of the people here in the Chicago area are illegals and most just walked right into the US...

 

You can find a whole lot of wars if you search history back to 1683.

Suggesting Islam was responsible for any significant fraction of them seems pretty weird to me.

I'd say if you are looking for boogy men by that kind of standard, you have no choice but to turn your mediocre measurement methods toward Germany, which killed 11 million Russian soldiers as well as somewhere between 7 and 20 million Russian civilians. And, 11 million in the Holocaust, of which 6 million were Jews. And, etc.

And, that was just second world war.

Japan killed 10 million or so civilians in WWII, too. Remember the "rape of Nanking"?


Lets also remember that the west created Iraq (a total hack job that has come back to haunt us), overthrew the government of Iran, screwed up Pakistan as part of the crumbling UK world domination scheme, propped up dictatorships in several ME countries, supports the disenfranchisement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, added chemical weapons to the war between Iraq and Iran, and otherwise has a long history of screwing up the ME.

 

Interesting straw man with lot's of bad history thrown in for good measure. First I never claimed that Islam was responsible for most wars. What I did state was that Islam has a very long history of attempted world conquest and that the closest they ever got was in 1683. ISIS and Al Qaeda are simply the latest iterations of what has been an on going periodic happenstance within Islam going on almost back to it's beginning. The relatively recent long periods of quiescence are as much a result of the West's huge and growing technological superiority as anything to do with Islam. There's a reason that much of Osama bin Laden's writings seem almost to be some sort of neo Luddite scream against modernity.

On Iran the same crowd that threw out the shah would have ditched Mossadiq eventually and for exactly the same reason. He wanted to bring the country out of the 16th century and into the twentieth. What little hope we have that Iran will eventually become a modern stable country is because the US helped the shah stay in power fr more than twenty years and because the shah set in place all of Mossadiq's reforms.

On Iraq, It was created to be a bull work against Iran by the French and British after they decided to dissolve the Ottoman Empire. twenty/twenty hindsight says they'd have done better to carve out a Kurdish state, roll the Sunnis into Syria, and the Shi'a into Iran. But then let's face it for whatever reason the west was in the hands of idiots and incompetents during the days immediately before and for some time after WWI. So for that matter was Russia.

On the Iran-Iraq War. Interesting that you mention the chemical weapons that were responsible for roughly 10% of the casualties in the war but ignore the fact that every single weapon of war used in that war came from Western Europe, Russia or the US.

 

I bet you meant bulwark.

 

I'm saying that people call it a crime even though it's not. My feeling is that it's pointless to argue definitions like that with people - it generally results in us just talking past each other, and makes it seem like the argument is a lawyer's quibble. I prefer to point out things like that if you're going to call undocumented immigrants criminals, you also need to call anyone who's ever driven five mph over the speed limit a criminal as well.

In any case, the current immigration law is unjust and institutionalized racism. I think that breaking it would more properly be called civil disobedience than a civil misdemeanor.

Riiiiight, because a President who increases annual deportations by 20% - enforcing a law he clearly dislikes and disagrees with - is obviously a lawless tyrant. I hate to break it to you, but being President while black is not a form of tyranny. And Obama has clearly stated that he'll veto any legislation that would roll back his executive actions and make the situation worse. “If rather than try to solve the broken immigration system they compound the problem, I’ll veto it.” (reference) It's Republicans who've declared that they won't agree to any reasonable solutions, decrying anything short of mass deportations of Latinos to be "amnesty." And I think it's a safe bet that they wouldn't be too particular about the legal status of those deportees, and an equally safe bet that even if Obama did agree to mass deportations that the Tea Party would find some reason to oppose it since anything Obama does must obviously be part of a plot to destroy America.

You see, here in the United States we have this weird thing called democracy where we believe that policy should reflect the will of the people - all of the people. To that end we've divided power among different branches of government, held accountable to the people in different ways, to ensure that one small faction can't take over the government and impose its will on everyone else. You know, like the Tea Party. And since the large majority of Americans have some slight moral problems with the idea of creating a modern day Trail of Tears, mass deportations aren't going to happen. Deal with it.

The current immigration law is immoral, unethical, unjust, unwise, and most of all totally unenforceable. The Soviets couldn't stop people from crossing a border looking for freedom and opportunity with razor while, machine gun nests and attack dogs. What in the world makes you think you can stop them by calling them rapists and murderers? Give me one good reason we shouldn't be welcoming these folks with open arms, other than the color of their skin.

(massive sarcasm) Yeah, inconvenient thing, that due process. Especially when you can tell just by the color of their skin that Latinos are evil awful people. (/massive sarcasm) Being in the US illegally is a crime in exactly the same sense that going 5 mph over the speed limit is a crime. Does that mean we should start deporting anyone who's ever gotten a traffic ticket?

For that matter, Rosa Parks committed a crime when she refused to give up her seat to a white man. Would you have wanted to deport her too? defying a law that institutionalizes racism is something to be commended and admired, not condemned.

The closest they got to world conquest was 1683? You mean the closest muslim nations ever got to conquering Europe was 1683. Believe it or not, Europe really isn't the whole world. In any case, even phrased properly the claim is pretty dubious. I'm pretty sure that Charles Martel would beg to differ.

Meh, christianity, islam - they're both just nutty monotheists ideologies cut from the same cloth. What difference does it make? Sure the Islamic world has gone through periods of barbarism. And by the exact same token while the Catholic church was burning people at the stake for heresy, muslims were founding some of the first modern universities and preserving the knowledge of classical civilizations from being lost forever.

By trying to disguise your bigotry toward muslims with a veneer of distorted historical fact you're putting yourself in exactly the same category as Osama bin Laden citing the Crusades as justification for September 11th.

 

This is an awesome post! It really brings to light so many truths.