Rubio and gang of 8 unveil bipartisan immigration plan.

And with their outmoded attitude no home in the U.S.A. You cannot run a successful political party while at that same time denigrating nearly half of U.S. citizens

 

That's too funny! When has that Uncle Tom ever done any hard work himself? He's a freaking politician! The only work he has ever done is to steal money from the taxpayers. Someone should throw his butt in a a cotton field for the next 20 years hoeing and picking cotton by hand.

 

Wishful thinking, it wont happen.

I live in a southwestern state where illegal immigration is a huge problem. E-verify does not work. Illegal aliens steal US citizens ID/SS# and that is how they are gaining employment. I see it all the time.

As for cutting off incentive for them to come here, that is the logical answer and the most effective hence why government wont do it. Two groups of people are the problem

1. Government, state and federal. Congressmen see the power that which is illegal aliens, democrats and republicans. Both parties use these criminals to retain their power. String them along with talks of "reform" or "amnesty" and you have their support. Create programs that give them welfare, food stamps, housing, medical, education, and you have their support. Both parties see this and are guilty of it.

2. Employers. Employers can hire illegal aliens for far less than US citizens. US citizens have far higher standards than the person coming from a third world country. As long as employers are mostly concerned with profit then a reason for illegal aliens to come here exists. And when I say employer I'm not only talking about fast food joints or landscaping companies, I'm also talking about the random american citizen who hires illegal aliens to trim his palm trees or install tile because the licensed insured US citizen business owner charges double what the illegal alien is charging because he is required by the government to carry insurance and pay taxes. Ilegal aliens don't have to pay taxes because there is no one holding them to it. They can stay out of the system if they want and keep whatever cash they make. I know this first hand because years ago I worked for a landscape company that paid its employees cash.

If you break it down further though, it still comes back to being a government problem. Government punishes law abiding citizens in every aspect, and rewards the criminals.

People in these kinds of debates often tell me that in order to fix the problem you must get out tere and vote. I wish this were true. The problem with trying to vote out congressmen, mayors, governors etc that create snactuary environments for illegals is that the number of far left liberals who are ok with illegal aliens being here far outweigh those who believe in protecting the borders because they understand the importance of a soverign nation. I cant recall at the moment who said it but it was along the lines of, when the people realize they can vote themselves welfare that the working class provides to have a nation that is sure to decline. Something of that sort. It applies to the illegal immigration topic too.

 

The real issue with the social welfare system arises from what it addresses. A vast majority of the social welfare system does not actually reduce poverty incidence. Instead, it seeks to reduce the symptoms of poverty. This is one reason why there have not been any long-term decreases in the poverty rate since the late 1960s. There have simply been cyclical fluctuations. Of course, there are some strong points. The poverty rate for individuals 65 and older has consistently decreased for decades, although decreases are starting to wane. Needless to say, social welfare is excellent for addressing the symptoms of poverty, but ineffective in reducing poverty incidence.

 

Keep the illegals and deport the politicians.

 

I am not surprised but I am not a conservative. I think the plan is better than how it is now. The republican party is changing. While I have issues with republicans on many issues. They are no more hypocritical than the democrats. The democrats being the party of the poor is the ultimate hypocrisy. The republicans supposedly favoring small government is a close second. Both parties represent the elite not the common citizen. Hopefully the republican party will transform and change that. Doubtful yet one can always dream.

 

I read it and it's actually a pretty good plan. And it's Bi-partisan with a good chance of passing. However.....here's the stink bug being thrown in: Obama is announcing tomorrow his own....and very liberal.....plan. Obama knows that his proposals will only cause dissention and makes the entire thing less likely to pass. That's what he wants. He doens't want anything Bi-Partisan to pass. What he wants is for it to fail......and all the while he'll blame Republicans. His plan: to use it to take back all of congress next election....making his last 2 years another, "Anything he wants" scenario. I actually read some time ago that this is what Obama was planning to do. After today's announcement, now I know it's true. This guy is all about votes and power.

 

Don't listen to what Dems are trying to feed you. They are seeking to cause a wedge to split the Republicans. Have you read the details of the Senate Bi-Partisan Plan? It's really a pretty good one......and is not a quick path to citizeship. There's certain things that have to be done. Here's the plan:

Create a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country:


-First, increase border security efforts including adding unmanned drones, surveillance equipment and more border agents;


-Require completion of an entry-exit system to track whether people in the U.S. on temporary visas have left as required;


-Create a commission of lawmakers and community leaders living along the southwest border to make a recommendation about when the border security measures have been completed;


-While security measures are under way illegal immigrants can register with the government, pass background checks and pay fines and back taxes in order to earn "probationary legal status."


-Once security measures are in place, immigrants on "probationary legal status" could apply for permanent legal status behind other immigrants already in the system.


-People brought to the U.S. as children, and farmworkers, would have a quicker path to citizenship.
Improve the legal immigration system:


-Reduce backlogs in family and employment visas;


-Award green cards to immigrants who obtain advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering or math from American universities.
Strong employment verification:


-Create non-forgeable electronic system for requiring prospective workers to demonstrate legal status and identity;


-Stiff fines and criminal penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.


Admitting new workers:


-Employers could hire immigrants if they can demonstrate they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American and the hiring of an immigrant will not displace American workers;


-Create an agricultural worker program to meet the needs of the nation's agriculture industry when American workers are not available;


-Allow more lower-skilled immigrants to come to the country when the economy is creating jobs, and fewer when it is not;


-Permit workers who have succeeded in the workplace and contributed to their communities over years to earn green cards.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/28/4035891/details-of-the-senate-immigration.html




Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/28/4035891/details-of-the-senate-immigration.html#storylink=cpy

 

On immigration, I am a proponent of free and open borders and immigration. However, there are many issues that must be attended to before a comprehensive immigration liberalization policy can be implemented. One, criminal activity in the border towns of Mexico must be quelled. This will require a series of policies, including drug liberalization measures, continuing law enforcement capacity building, and significant economic development of Northern Mexico. Two, the social welfare system must undergo significant reforms in order to address poverty incidence and its symptoms rather than just poverty symptoms. Three, an E-Verify system must be put in place. Illegal immigrants caught under the system should be subject to a substantial fine, along with the employer. Four, a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants must be provided, even if it means adopting a policy of amnesty. There is no way of fully internalizing the negative externalities of illegal immigration besides mass deportation or amnesty. Considering the former is politically undesirable and infeasible, the latter is the best option.

From here, liberalization measures can be established. This includes eliminating as many restrictions on immigration under current law as possible, and drawing back the security presence along the border. In the end, I am certain that the United States could, eventually, eliminate immigration laws altogether, returning to the period where only naturalization laws were on the books.

 

I don't want them as citizens. ****! You are lawless scum.

As a country looking for potential citizens we can do much better than lawless uneducated unaculturated latinos.

Get me 11 million Indians just out of university. They will be three times as valuable.

Never freeeeekin happen. None of these measures would be done to a satisfactory degree. You'll get amnesty for the lawless scum and a path north for the next wave.

Kiss America goodbye. Again.[/QUOTE]

 

count them and register them first,

I have a right to know the exact number they will give amnesty to.

Count Them First.

 

That's all good and well, but I was observing how Welfare makes immigrants "cost us". Immigrants of the sort they're aiming at tend to be poor and are naturally out of work when they arrive. Free immigration and welfare are thus incompatible, because while millions of people coming to the country is good in a laissez faire system, with entitlements it ends up increasing government expenditures faster than it does revenues.

This was actually one of the things that made me realize the left was wrong on entitlements, back in the day

 

Other than the inherent evil of public property itself I have no problem with the government restricting immigrants from being in the public/using public services - but I should be able to let anyone on my property I desire.

Obviously nobody in politics wants to get rid of the welfare state, so this is about as good a compromise as you're going to get: let anyone travel through public land to private land (provided the owner allows it), but charge them a toll for the use of the public's land - since they don't pay taxes. Additionally, offer practically unlimited work visas, especially for the highly educated that lead after say... 5 years to citizenship and tax payment - after continuous employment for that period. After this they are as American/Australian/whatever as anyone else in the country.

In the short term this is probably the best we're gonna get.

 

Sounds like a great way to flood out and destroy the original founding culture of the USA to me.

 

[/QUOTE]

Well, I understand how you feel. But truth is, our country let it happen....starting way back in the late 70's; early 80's. And there is no way we are going to round up 11 to 20 million people and send them back. It's better to make them pay the fine and get them on the TAX rolls, and put them at the back of the line for working towards their citizenship. AND make our borders tighter.

 

In Texas, we've been working alongside Mexicans since before the state was formed. My Dad was a carpenter and he worked with Mexicans everyday. They are hard-working people and most are religious. Many are running yard service businesses and other businesses as they are very entrepreneurial....and we need to make sure they are on the tax rolls and paying taxes.

 

I smell RINO.

 

That may be but there is one crucial distinction.

Mexicans will gladly vote for confiscatory tax rates and broad, social democratic meddling and interference in the economy.

 

No most of those are becoming democrats. Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell for example. The republicans are a party in transition whatever they become, going back to the rhino days are doubtful.

 

Nativist xenophobes are in a tizzy and sputtering wildly about the prospect of realistic immigration reform, but GOP politicians have been delivered an eviction notice at the ballot box, and progress is in the offing.

The irony is that, despite his monumentally-costly nation-building fiascos and fiscal mismanagement, if Republicans had not killed their non-person Stumblebum Bush's efforts to confront the problem of undocumented folks, the Party would not have gotten their perfumed tushies kicked and be in the desperate plight that now drives them to pander to the public. Elections are about numbers, and the Hispanic ones increase even as the TPs ranks shrivel and fizzle.

Angry White guys got in a snit when a high-profile South Carolinian Republican Senator noted the obvious: “We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business." The consequence of that acknowledgement is to make the vanishing angry white guys even angrier. Hissyfit time.

​

.

"Ah gut sumthin' raght?​

Yes, George, You did! ​

.

 

Are you like Democrats who think that everyone of one party should all march in lockstep and think exactly the same way on every issue.
What's YOUR solution then?

 

Except that this isn't true. While some Republicans were against it, it was none other than Senator Barack Obama who killed it in 2007. There were many article at the time pointing that out. Now, he's pushing the very same thing he killed back then.....leading me to believe that he simply did not want George W. Bush getting any credit for Immigration Reform or he had primaries coming up and was beholding to the UNIONS who did not want the guest worker program. I expect some of both. The "presidential contenders" at the time killed it, and it was Obama's vote that put the thing over the top:

"McCain was joined in opposing the amendment by the Senate's four Democratic presidential hopefuls: Obama, Clinton, Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut."

They were clearly playing politics with the issue.....appeasing their UNION base for votes. They cared more about that than fixing a huge problem.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...l-immigration-reform-2007-will-media-remember

http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=88959

Senator Graham on what happened in 2007:

"But if you want to talk about the president bringing us together and being a bold leader, in 2007 when we tried to do immigration reform, he folded like a cheap suit when the labor, AFL-CIO got mad at the bill to allow temporary workers. Obama, Senator Obama put a sunset on the temporary worker provision which destroyed the bill for business.So I don't need a lecture from Barack Obama about bipartisanship."


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...immigration-reform-obama-folded#ixzz2JNVK79s1

 

Your revisionism follows the compusion to attempt to blame Obama for everything, but does not comport with the facts:

Even the right wing media that desperately attempts to smear President Obama constantly is forced to honestly concede, "By no means was the death of immigration reform done at the hands of only the then-Senator from Illinois.

 

In the beginning, you may be right. BUT I also think that many are conservative by nature; most are religious......BOTH things that don't fit in so well with the Democrat party. Not to mention many are entrepreneurial. When they become legal and start having to pay those taxes, I think you'll see their conservatism start to come out. Plus, we have to work at getting them to join with Republicans in like-minded issues.

 

Well, of course that's the way most of the liberal press is going to portray it. To them it's ALWAYS the Republicans fault......even when it isn't. And Dems eat it up like pablum. And that's exactly what they put in their papers and media outlets. But the truth is in the pudding. The reason the thing failed was because of the poison pill amendment that Sen Barack Obama and his union-backing cohorts put it at the last minute to KILL the bill.

From Sen Graham, one of the Bi-Partisan Leaders again today on this issue:
"But if you want to talk about the president bringing us together and being a bold leader, in 2007 when we tried to do immigration reform, he folded like a cheap suit when the labor, AFL-CIO got mad at the bill to allow temporary workers. Obama, Senator Obama put a sunset on the temporary worker provision which destroyed the bill for business.So I don't need a lecture from Barack Obama about bipartisanship."