You make a great point, we have so much border and reasonably securing the borders sounds daunting. Does that mean, however, that because of the enormity of the task, it should not be done? In other words, should there be no attempt to control the borders? If no, I understand your point, On the other hand, if you believe there should be control of the borders, to what extent? - and, more importantly, should there be any criteria for entering this country?
I see you want me to take a position, cool. The borders have to be controlled and we must make every effort to make our borders as secure as possible, regardless of the enormity of the task. To what extent? We must do everything that is legally, reasonably, and technically possible, in an effort to accomplish what your questions suggests.
Does that mean that we should provide employment for the world? Maybe I read the unemployment figures wrong, but it doesn't appear to me that there exist a job for every willing American. Who has the priority of any available job, citizens of this country -- or anyone who can gain entry, whether legal or not?
No, I do not suggest that we provide employment for the world. But tell me, are migratory workers illegal or otherwise working in this country any different than Outsourcing?
I agree with you that business has no interest in stopping <u>anything</u> that adds to its bottom line. Likewise, the government, better still, our representatives that make-up the government, appear to be embroiled in political gamesmanship over the outcome of elections.
Your concerns are expected, and of course justified. To put it bluntly, I am concerned about my next door neighbor, but I work to feed and provide for MY Family first. If after that I can help my next door neighbor I will, but my priorities start with me and mine.
None of those reasons, however, have anything to do with whats in the best interest of this country and whats in the best interest for my family. Simply because both are acting in their parochial self interest doesn't change whats in the nation's best interest. I'm concerned about the latter.
As far as the nation goes, the political and economic leaders which are one and the same, will do without being asked whatever is best for the nation, at least as their stated agenda.
If your surtax/surcharage and penalty idea was put into place and enforced, I probably wouldn't have much of a problem with it. It doesn't appear to grant wholesale citizenship, it might have some impact on border-flood, and, if I understand it correctly, it doesn't ignore the notion that there should be control over the border. On the other hand, if it doesn't mean control over the border and it means granting citizenship to anyone who is able to find a whole in a fence, I disagree. In my humble opinion, extending rights, liberties, privileges and immunities must have some greater underpinning than mere presence. Moreover, thats what the current law is and if we are going to change that, we need to amend the Constitution -- which requires a conscious decision to do so -- not the quasi-common law approach some seem to advocate.
I don’t think you would have a problem with the surtax/surcharge approach. No it does not grant citizenship as a right, but it could very well be considered when granting citizenship to any immigrant. My suggestion would serve to be a more effective method of control than now exists. Forget about minimum wages for immigrants we don’t impose that stipulation for outsourcing. Count all of the workers in a given area business etc. Require that all workers be documented. Ensure that all appropriate taxes are collected, and each payee is given the proper credit for same.
However I would insist that American workers have the first shot at those jobs with the same production requirements expected of the Mexican workers. With any American citizen paid at least minimum wages. The Government farm subsidies could make up the difference, instead of paying billions to farmers like DelMonte inc.
The penalty is imposed, when the employer does not adhere to the above stipulations. We talk about illegal workers, but they are employed every day. You and I are taxed to distraction. There is a penalty imposed on us for insufficient withholding, on top of the additional penalties if you don’t pay by April 15. We are focusing on a non issue, that is only my opinion. We cry Havoc about undocumented workers, while the top 1% of the wage earners in this country pay a smaller percentage of their money than those at or near the bottom of the economic ladder.
We have companys doing business in this country that pay no taxes at all.
That is an issue.
Some dude working in a field, picking whatever or landscaping the grounds of some fat cat. That is NOT an issue.
Pension plans being raided by greedy men already rich, and having someone that has worked for as long as 40 years to now be forced to live off Social Security instead of the retirement he paid for.
That is an issue.
I am not trying to get on my soap box, but does anyone really believe some starving dude making 3 or 4 dollars an hour is a real threat to this country?
Excuse me, but a lot of people appear to be overlooking a lot of things. Illegal aliens have rights and <u>responsibilities</u> in their native countries. They don't have those rights and responsibilities here and those rights and responsibilities are <u>never</u> to be compared with the Civil Rights struggle. Not that this applies to you, but I keep getting the feeling that many who argue as you do seem to take the position that any poke in whitey's eyes is alright with them. And, before someone cries whitey lover, let me say that I haven't forgotten a damn thang. But I'm not willing to align my rights, etc., with someone just to poke whitey in the eye while at the same time (knowingly or unknowingly) dilute my own position in the process. Dilution, however, in my opinion is exactly whats in the offing. I have to join with those posters who, like me, don't see the "identity of interest" of Black and Mexican voters. I love my fellow man alright, but this is politics
All the more reason to consider the options, isn't it?
Bottom line, no person residing in this country legal or not has the same rights as a citizen of this county.
I agree with you, we shouldn't be hateful towards Mexicans and Mexicans shouldn't be hateful towards us. I think you might call that the commutative property of race or ethinic relations. But, as I said above, this ain't about love, its politics. Herbert Lasswell defines politics as: who gets what, when and how. In that regard, I'm not willing to cede our political strength to accomodate illegal immigrants, who haven't demonstrated that they have "Our" political interest at heart.
QueEx