A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform, primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems," Bush said.

"And my answer to the skeptics is: give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect. Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don't try to kill this bill before it gets moving," Bush told students and instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center."



"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," the president said. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.

"You can use it to frighten people," Bush said. "Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PE5LPO0&show_article=1

Now this is the Christian thing to do. To love thy neighbor!

Loving my neighbor is one thing. Supporting him is another...

Better be safe and avoid both.

Its time to take action and this bill is precisely it. Immigrants are a threat.

Constant supply of cheap labor is all what USA is about. Immigrants are not a threat; they are a necessity. Without them the system will stop to function "properly", working population may get out of control, grow brains and start to fight back.

Constant supply of cheap labor is all what USA is about. Immigrants are not a threat they are a necessity for the system to function "properly" and keep working population under total control.

I was talking of illegal immigrants who bring in drugs, guns, violence and such.

I was talking of illegal immigrants who bring in drugs, guns, violence and such.

That's even better than legal immigration laborcostwise, just ask owners of California strawberry fields. Perfect labor - cheap, docile, dispensible. "aboriginal" labor force gradually becomes like that (those who have a job) but not fast enough as for business taste. Guns and violence are just a cost of business, it must be well worth it.

As for costs, there are multibillion administrative costs in maintaining legal immigration flow. Illegals don't need that. Besides, since they've managed to cross USA/Mexican border, walk many miles in deserts and live, they are way genetically superior to the legal immigrants. Just drive to El Paso, TX and see for yourself. Personally, I would drop dead few miles north of the border.

Immigrants will take jobs forever, infact soon you'll be labeled an immigrant because all corporations want is cheap workforces, this means even with unions the illegals will want only the cheapest of pay, you are all doomed (aka me as well).

As for costs, there are multibillion administrative costs in maintaining legal immigration flow. Illegals don't need that. Besides, since they've managed to cross USA/Mexican border, walk many miles in deserts and live, they are way genetically superior to the legal immigrants. Just drive to El Paso, TX and see for yourself. Personally, I would drop dead few miles north of the border.

Umm, genetically speaking their genes won't be altered that fast, are you mad?

Umm, genetically speaking their genes won't be altered that fast, are you mad?
Why do they need them altered, their genes already superior, since they came through the "porous" border and stayed alive. Survival is all what matters in this world.

You talk a lot about costs, Dixon, so have you ever considered how much implementing the senate's bill will cost the American taxpayer?

I've searched high and low and cannot find one estimate from any of the esteemed individuals backing the bill, a bill which would require a huge amount of additional government spending and more government employees. For those reasons alone, it should go the way of the Dodo.

And since when did it become the government's job to ensure that certain industries have cheap labor?

You talk a lot about costs, Dixon, so have you ever considered how much implementing the senate's bill will cost the American taxpayer? I recollect that that's government who has control (albeit disguised) of the printing press, not taxpayers. Taxpayers just "volunteer" their labors for $ government prints, it's labor not $ are extracted through income taxes. Government could print Mountains of Bills on its own.

I've searched high and low and cannot find one estimate from any of the esteemed individuals backing the bill, a bill which would require a huge amount of additional government spending and more government employees. For those reasons alone, it should go the way of the Dodo.As somebody said, the main problem of capitalism is that 80% of people is neither wanted or needed. Do you want those potential immigration office employees to rob you, instead of pushing papers around? Since free market constistently fails to create jobs, it has become a government job to keep societary pyramide in the shape. Just kick that bastard government out, and all majestic building will collapse like twin towers. Sure, government can't ensure that most of the government sponsored jobs are either meaningful or useful. But, hey, nobody is perfect, you can't have it all.

And since when did it become the government's job to ensure that certain industries have cheap labor?
I alway has been that way. ALWAYS. After all, "(American) government is a shadow cast by business over society".

Loving my neighbor is one thing. Supporting him is another...
Sure. Throw them in the fiery pitts of hell.

First off, have you ever heard of inflation? The Weirmar Republic? Regardless, the government can't just print more money to pay for programs, and the amount of money people like the Heritage Foundation are estimating it will cost to implement this bill is in the trillions of dollars.

Secondly, I don't care what "somebody said" I don't see where it's been proven that "the main problem of capitalism is that 80% of people is neither wanted or needed."

It's also ridiculous to posit an either/or scenario about "potential immigration office employees" robbing me or pushing papers around. The gap of logic there is so great, it doesn't merit much discussion.

As for the "free market consistently failing to create jobs," you'll need to refresh yourself with a glance at this nation's recent economic indicators. If you do, you'll see* that the US gross domestic output has increased by more than 2 percent in the latest quarter, and increased by a similar number last year and the year before that. In fact, so far as I know, the US has economy has grown every quarter following the brief recession after 9/11. And of the world's top 14 economies, only Japan's unemployment rate is lower than America's...

*Page 105, The Economist, May 18th, 2007.

First off, have you ever heard of inflation? The Weirmar Republic?

Sure, I've heard about inflation. More than that, I lived through 10000% inflation myself. And you know, despite 10000% inflation, people were WILLING to work for those bills. Besides, in the monetary system we live under, inflation is a must. Sometimes, it get out of hands. However, it's a government wich supplies taxpayers with money, not vice versa.

Regardless, the government can't just print more money to pay for programs,
Sure it can. It does it constantly. That announcement that FEDs decreased interest rate is disguised announcement - "money supply is increased, i.e. money "were" printed". Money are not just being "printed", they are "printed" to be given as loans to suckers, financing various projects. And guess what, to pay off those loans (made of the air) + interest, the REAL efforts are required. However, that pesky interest on the loans ( made of the thin air )requires that more money was paid back than the amount which was originally "printed". Thus, money constantly must be "printed" (to be given away as new loans, so old ones could be paid off, and merry go round). Without that constant printing glorious capitalist edifice can't stand. Under ideal capitalist conditions, the money are printed to "finance" new projects (i.e. economy must constantly grow, to infinity and beyond). However, there are spells when economy doesnt' grow. It's crucial to print more money in those times, otherwise old debts can't be paid off = mass going out of business. That's when inflation (More than usual) kicks in.

and the amount of money people like the Heritage Foundation are estimating it will cost to implement this bill is in the trillions of dollars.
Heritage Foundation, holy cow, that must be true then.

Secondly, I don't care what "somebody said" I don't see where it's been proven that "the main problem of capitalism is that 80% of people is neither wanted or needed."
In Brazilian Slums, the country with much "Purer" capitalism than government contaminated american one. If one subtract all government employee as well as all those whose jobs depends on government spending, that's going to be a large number. If one will count in those whose jobs depends on the level of stupidity and brainwashness of consumers (so called creation of "want") that number will skyrocket.

Seriously, there are "serious" academic work, calculating how much people are needed to support current socio-economic structure. That's a serious question for the social control.



It's also ridiculous to posit an either/or scenario about "potential immigration office employees" robbing me or pushing papers around. The gap of logic there is so great, it doesn't merit much discussion.

Don't see a gap of logic. There are two kind of jobs: "essential" and "not quite". The number of "essential" jobs is limited. The rest depends on the constant creation of new "wants" jobs or "government jobs". There are two problem with "new wants" economy. A) populace, despite all brainwashing and dumbing down, would not "want this thing, and that thing, and that...."; B) The life span (and financial resources) of an average schmuck are limited. There is "want saturation" point. One cant want it all.

Thus, to keep critical mass of people "gainfully employed" government must create jobs directly and/or create them indirectly by creating various regulations. If you will not want a service of a potential immigration official, if governent would not create some "just to get busy" job for him, chances are he may take needed cash at a gun point. Who would blame him?

As for the "free market consistently failing to create jobs," you'll need to refresh yourself with a glance at this nation's recent economic indicators. If you do, you'll see* that the US gross domestic output has increased by more than 2 percent in the latest quarter, and increased by a similar number last year and the year before that. In fact, so far as I know, the US has economy has grown every quarter following the brief recession after 9/11. And of the world's top 14 economies, only Japan's unemployment rate is lower than America's...

I'm sorry to dissappoint you but economic growth (whatever that crap means these days) is quite possible with no or modest increase in work force. Large firing is always a welcome news for the stock market. If one look back, most of the jobs American economy has created are in one way or the other are government related.

This part of Chomsky's talk stuck in my mind: average corporate profits grew 58%, sales grew 8%, work force grew 2%. Wake up and smell the roses of things to come, if not here yet.

"If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.



if you are a commie!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I'm well aware that it's the government who prints money, and in doing so, somewhat controls the supply of capital, though there are other tangible forms of capital. However, a government's control and manipulation of the amount of cash flow has a limited impact on the economy as whole, and historically speaking, attempts by governments to spend their way out of recessions or to create growth have proven to be problematic.

I mentioned the Weimar Republic because it's a perfect historical example of where printing more money did absolutely nothing to help the country recover economically. All it did was devalue the currency and inflate the price being demanded for goods, a combination that tends to impact consumers whose wages never keep pace with the inflation or increases in costs.

Your attack of the Heritage Foundation, which I presume stems from ideological reasons, isn't logical. You'll need to debunk their claims, which I mentioned in passing only because no other organizations seems to be attempting to calculating the costs of the new bill, with contrary evidence beyond "I don't like Heritage Foundation," a glib sentiment I myself could easily apply to someone like Noam Chomsky, who you "quote" later.

I'm not sure what your graphs about Brazilian slums and "serious" academic work prove, either. I don't even see an argument there, as all you seem to be saying is, 'Hey, there are other people out there who agree with me.' You have argued that in "80% of people is neither wanted or needed," but so far failed to define those terms or argued why it should matter that a job is or isn't needed.

If you cannot understand why either/or is a fallacy, then you need to study logic some and learn what a fallacy is. So far as this discussion is concerned, let me just say that telling me there are two kind of jobs forces me to accept a premise as a conclusion, and in doing so, accept your this or that statement. That's illogical.

You also write: "If you will not want a service of a potential immigration official, if government would not create some 'just to get busy' job for him, chances are he may take needed cash at a gun point. Who would blame him?"

Well, I would. This immigrant of yours has free will and if he chooses to commit a crime, that's his decision and he can and should be punished for it. However, I again assert your entire premise is flawed, because you're setting up an either/or scenario that is asking me to allow that if the government doesn't give this fellow a job, then he might go out and rob someone. I would argue it's not the government's responsibility to give him a job, it's his to find one, to which I might add, find one legally. If your immigrant wasn't here at all, then your scenario doesn't even exist...

You make a number of assertions in the rest of your post, none of which you lay any logical foundation for or provide any detailed evidence of, beyond your Chomsky quote.

I've heard the US is able to print money wrecklessly because they are not doing it as fast as the Weimar Republic did and oil is traded in US dollars which causes the dollar to be a world wide reserve currency for many countries that happen to use oil. This is changing and lots of countries are looking to trade oil for Euros. So its a big surprise the price of oil in US dollars is going up. Or is it?

Anyways, the government has stopped telling us how much cash, M-2 I think its called, is in circulation. Now if they were on the level about it why would they stop telling us?

The founding fathers talked about massive inflation of a currency followed by massive deflation, printing it out like its going out of style, as a way bankers can take control of America. Is it happening? Maybe.