We Need More Immigrants Without Politics While Stopping Illegals at the Border

Just like you, I've posted mine. But you had a problem with me. I don't know your position, but I'm willing to read it. You just been told where it most likely will go. My position was so well known a couple of years ago, that the guy who posted my personal information on this board and got banned is legendary.

In the course of my activism, I have been beaten, shot, jailed, tried for crimes that never existed and been lied to, lied about, and treated with the utmost disdain by people that, if they had an IQ larger than their shoe size would listen to what I bring to the table. Some days one gets tired of bringing it to the table only to have amateurs with no real experience try to dismiss it without all the facts.

So, do you want a real discussion and all the facts, from both sides get to be presented? You have to promise to not give me the standard B.S. that you don't read long posts. I'll read what you have to say and respond accordingly. Deal?

 

Actually, I did not respond to your position on immigration at all. I responded to the claim that 500 economists somehow validated your position, as if this were a popularity contest, and as if 500 was a significant number out of the population of economists, and as if economists actually had a solid record of predicting the economic outcome of anything.

The reality is that if you write a book on immigration, I am not going to read it. About 350 words is the limit (about 1 screen in height minus the copy of the post you are responding to) for a post, I keep that in mind when I write a post. This forum is entertainment, if you want to only deal with "experts" in a specific subject who will read a treatise, then this is not the place to be.

My position on immigration is that a nation must control its borders. Its a simple fact that an open border between a wealthy nation with generous welfare and a poor nation will lead to financial disaster to the wealthy nation.

Allow controlled immigration, immigrants should have something substantial to add to the nation - skills, experience, talent. They should have a honest desire to become an American. There should be a straightforward process for granting such people entry.

Illegals should be sent back to their home country, and that's not difficult. Turn them back immediately at the border, turn of the magnet - end all federal welfare for non-citizens, end sanctuary cities, start inspecting employers and levying fines for hiring illegals - and they will stop coming and the vast majority here will self-deport. For the remaining illegals who have truly become Americanized, verify they meet the requirements to immigrate into the US, and allow them to stay.

The politics of illegal immigration are obvious from the results of the Reagan "amnesty" - you can turn conservative states into "progressive" states by swamping the electorate with illegals. Arizona (the home of Barry Goldwater) is now prog. California (the home of Reagan) is a prog lunatic asylum. The prog leaders have openly commented on this history. There is unquestionably a ploy to use immigration to shift the electorate.

 

In short, you are for an Orwellian concept of government with a womb to the tomb monitoring, laying the blame on immigrants for your failure to read and find the root of the problem.

 

LOL, so much for your ability to debate. I knew you would not live up to your words.

 

Live up to my words??? Aren't you the one that tapped out by not agreeing to consider what I said? Are you insecure or dishonest? I'll play your game for a moment and show you that you don't measure up.

Beyond what I quoted in red, you finally offered something concrete. You wrote:

"Allow controlled immigration, immigrants should have something substantial to add to the nation - skills, experience, talent. They should have a honest desire to become an American. There should be a straightforward process for granting such people entry."

1) Controlled immigration??? Then you get specific. You would allow some employers to avail themselves of the needed workers, but deny it to someone else. That's a winner... except that it is unconstitutional. You just advocated a violation of the 14th Amendment

2) Our government thought the families of the San Bernadino shooters, the Army Major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and the security guard that mowed down 53 people in Florida were the kind of people that were going to "benefit" America. Maybe you will argue that killing the gays in Florida proves your point???

3) When you attach a good job to getting someone's loyalty, they will tell you any damn thing you want to hear. That, however does not change their loyalties.

You wrote:
"Illegals should be sent back to their home country, and that's not difficult. Turn them back immediately at the border, turn of the magnet - end all federal welfare for non-citizens, end sanctuary cities, start inspecting employers and levying fines for hiring illegals - and they will stop coming and the vast majority here will self-deport. For the remaining illegals who have truly become Americanized, verify they meet the requirements to immigrate into the US, and allow them to stay..."

It's not that difficult??? Are you nuts? First, you have to suspect someone of a crime. You have to have probable cause to even screw with them. You need to read the Constitution, son.

Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for very much welfare. Most of it is inaccessible. They do pay $12 BILLION DOLLARS into Social(ist) Security every year by virtue of the fact that about 75 percent of them have obtained an Individual Tax Identification Number and pay the same taxes you do (according to the Chief Actuary of the Social(ist) Security Administration.

The Courts aren't seeing the sanctuary cities the same way you do, so there isn't much to debate there

In 1997 Sheriff Richard Mack went to court and argued (all the way to the United States Supreme Court) that he, a county sheriff, was not required to enforce federal laws. Employers aren't even on the government payroll and you think they SHOULD enforce federal laws??? WTH?

Finally, you continue to suggest that one should be an American just to work here. Well, what happens when they outnumber you and outvote you - AND your silly a** debate becomes moot because you just made them the majority in this country?

You make much ado about the electorate of this country while demanding that Guest Workers be forced to become citizens. You're more dangerous than the Democrats AND you want to enforce laws put into place by liberal Democrat, Ted Kennedy that clearly discriminate against the whites.

It doesn't appear you've done much to prepare for this fight.

BTW, In 1953 Congress sat down and and concocted this plan called "Operation Wetback." They did EXACTLY what you suggested beginning the next year. In less than five years the unemployment rate DOUBLED!!!!! By contrast, after SEVEN amnesty periods that began in 1986, our unemployment rate dipped to one of its lowest until the 9 / 11 event - AN EVENT CARRIED OUT BY THAT "LEGAL" VARIETY OF IMMIGRANTS.

 

Battle 3 wanted a battle, but if his initial posts are an indication of his material, his side is about to get cheated.

The anti-immigrant side has spent TRILLIONS of tax dollars on the losing immigration rhetoric they have brought to the table. They have destroyed many of the protections of our Constitution and they have done everything within their power to bring about the ultimate POLICE STATE.

What they've done and what they have planned would make George Orwell's 1984 novel look like Playland. There are immigration issues, but it has nothing to do with Guest Workers for the most part. Their presence is a symptom and destroying our Freedoms and Liberties cannot cure that.

Battle3 has brought to this discussion the same National Socialist solutions that have been presented over and over again. And, if he thinks that is empty allegations, I warned him of exactly WHO conjured up this anti-immigrant rhetoric in the first place.

Let me make it simple: Do we have an immigration problem? Yes. Will Battle3's ideas address it? HELL NO. The question now becomes: Does he want to know what is REALLY going on? Or does he think that if you don't accept his views, you're stupid????

 

This is not a fight. This is an entertainment forum. Nobody is paid to be here, nobody is required to be here.

I am not going to read a tome. If you cannot present your argument in a concise, well composed manner, suitable to the medium, then you understand neither communication nor the subject.

However, I did read your post, it was disjointed and most was trivial. I'll address one sentence of it:
"The Courts aren't seeing the sanctuary cities the same way you do, so there isn't much to debate there"
So you think the courts rule is supreme, and the law cannot be changed, not even by Congress. And clearly you think the courts are unanimous in their opinion, and there are no political courts and nobody ever goes "judge shopping". Clearly your claimed expertise is seriously flawed.

 

Either you want to participate in this or you don't. I'll respond to what you say - and given the number of subjects you pose, you are getting the shortest possible answer. And if you can't read (and insulting me is showing maybe you can't) maybe you're biting off more than you can chew. Don't start that B.S. of wanting a thesis in three sentences.

You asked:

"So you think the courts rule is supreme, and the law cannot be changed, not even by Congress."

RESPONSE: I know full well that the law cannot be changed after the United States Supreme Court rules on it... unless and until the Constitution is amended. In 1803, the United States Supreme Court declared itself to be the final arbiter of what the law is. The case was called Marbury v. Madison. Leaving you a link just so you can brush up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

The decisions of the Supreme Court are the final word on constitutional law and you don't have the two thirds majority in Congress to reverse their decisions on the immigration issue.

Furthermore, in 1997 Sheriff Richard Mack went all the way to the Supreme Court (and Mack is on the right of politics) to fight against gun control. Mack's argument was that, as a local sheriff, he was not obligated to enforce federal laws (specifically doing background checks.) You are expecting the courts to reverse your own precedent. You look at immigration with blinders on, unable to understand that there are good reasons for NOT having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

 

Rather than to get in a whizzing contest with Battle3 I will point out some hard learned lessons just in case anyone is really interested in this:

America wants to blame undocumented immigrants for a host of woes, but we never sit back and examine the facts. For example, undocumented immigrants are not "stealing jobs," but rather balancing out the economy.

Between 1986 and 2001 our unemployment picture had us at 6.6 to seven percent or so down to 3.9 percent in 2000 and not going up again until after 9 / 11.

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

During that period we had seven amnesty periods for undocumented immigrants. You don't have to be an Einstein to understand that there is NO correlation between undocumented immigrants and unemployment. As a matter of fact, when I entered into this discussion, my first researched article had the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimating that up to 10 million undocumented people were in the U.S. and TWO million more crossing the border each year. That was in 1986.

I can promise all of you we have an immigration debacle. But, the reason the immigrants are here is because they are filling a void that America has created. They are but the symptom. However, while they are here, they are profitable for the American people. The issue of Americans not having jobs is NOT related to the immigration issue. And that is where we should begin to focus - IF they want to understand what this is really about.

 

Regarding needing population growth - as more farmers and manufacturing business mechanize we need less workers while maintaining or even surpassing production.

Modern technology on the border is enhanced even more by man made barriers as the barrier is more of a deterrent.

Asylum seekers has only effected further wait times for other asylum seekers, in the meantime they are paroled into the US.

There needs to be a quadrupling + of immigration judges to keep up with the need.

 

From the actual letter that was penned

http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1727

Basically all the open letter is doing is requesting that immigration reform be pursued.

What is it you think those 500 economists are actually saying?

 

How does one know that someone is an undocumented alien just by looking at them? If I visit an establishment I presume that the employer has hired employees that are legally allowed to work in the US. The availability of cheap labor is only profitable for the employee and the employer, that is what every non-partisan study concludes. All economists agree that the undocumented cost the rest of the people in the US, about $14K per undocumented. Even your prior link of 500 economists admits

Notice how they throw in the word "likely" to obfuscate reality.

What we know from studies is that legal immigration of high end workers benefits the US, while immigration of low skilled workers hurts our own and effectively costs the rest of us.

What constitutional protections have been lost via this so called police state, what has effected you. Immigration laws have no effect on US Citizens. Who has called for the elimination of foreign labor? Do you not realize that there are numerous labor visas to enter the US on, the H2A has no annual cap, the problem is getting people to use it as required.

 

No sir. I don't know squat about visas. I worked for six years in immigration law and spent a total of three plus decades without realizing that. Note the sarcasm.

So, what constitutional protections have been lost that have affected me?

The first noticeable time is when the government tried to use the so-called "Patriot Act" against me to kill me without the benefit of Due Process. That was one of those laws concerning foreigners.

For others, like me in Arizona, SB1070 took away the Right to a presumption of innocence.

OMG, dude, why don't you start a thread???? You wouldn't like the list.