No they don't. Some Dems say Wall Street should be tightly regulated by enforcement of written laws. It's Reps and their Dem allies who say regulation of Wall Street should be by voluntary adherence to unwritten "laws".
Actually it is, unless you happen to be at the river or a checkpoint, borders are not drawn into the landscape as a physical line, just a conceptual one. Conceptual = imagined. They don't intend it, and yet they do it anyway. That's the "invisible hand" at work, thaty is quintessentially what all of capitalism is based on: If you don't think they add anything, the you obviously do not believe in Adam Smith or capitalism in general.
The only things they add are disease, crime, theft, ruining neighborhoods/ schools/stores/malls, anchor babies etc.
I still don't get what's "controversial" about it. What has people uptight? Should have been a shoot to kill policy on the southern border decades ago. 55 grains of FMJ was all the dang diplomacy we ever needed down there. It's cheap too!
Agreed. This is like the 60s when it started with protests and ended up riots. I think there will be more uprisings by criminal aliens and those who support them. It's pathetic.
I assume you never buy produce, eat in restaurants, or order food for delivery and that you pay your (legal) gardener and cleaning woman a premium to make up for the lower market prices gardening draws due to the impact of illegals on the markets? By the way, another word for "anchor babies" is "babies", even "American babies", so shame on you for suggesting they are on the same level as a disease.
Other than produce that might have been tended or collected by an illegal immigrant, what about eating in restaurants or ordering food implies that illegal immigrants (Mexicans) are integral to that service? Gardening? Most people, unless they're very wealthy, do their own gardening. Being a maid or part of a cleaning service also doesn't imply illegal in any way. That might be different for southern states. And babies may also be anchor babies, no?
The border has been neglected for decades. I can understand why employers would want to hire Mexican laborers. Sadly, you can get not only cheaper labor, but better labor than that available in the US for low paid jobs by hiring illegals...not that it justifies hiring illegals. Second, there are an estimated 12 million illegals presently in The United States because of decades of neglect. In order to rid ourselves of 12 million illegals, it would require a huge increase in the size of government and fedeal spending....just to ferret out the existing 12 million illegals and deport them...not to mention the traunching required of our civil liberties (e.g. check points and papers). And that does nothing to keep them out after you deported them. It is a pretty sad problem.
Or, we could just severely punish those who hire illegals, create a more flexible way for Mexican laborers to cross the border and work and the increase border security (fences where fences work and are needed as well as more border agents). Punish the sadistic employers, drive away the incentive to be an illegal and watch the illegal problem vanish. ~String
Illegal aliens make up a sizable portion of kitchen staff in many restaurants, and that alters the dynamics of the markets for kitchen staff. Ifg you are a U.S. citizen looking for work in those positions, you will be facing increased competition and therefore wages lowered likely to the legal minimum...if you can get the job at that wage, since illegals can work for less than the legal minimum. The supply of illegal labor affects the restaurant market, even for employers that do not hire illegals. Sandy has indicated that she is very wealthy, although in rethinking it she may be living in Chicago, rather than a place where she'd have a property to tend to. Same point as for restaurant work. Legal maids and housekeepers are in the same market as illegal ones (and there are lots of illegal ones, so there is a direct link). Illegals are competing in the market, and that drives the creation of value in an economic sense. If one hires a housekeeper and pays him or her a premium over and above the market wage, then at least one can claim that one isn't benefiting from the lower prevailing wages brought on my the increased labor supply, but that is not the same thing as saying that illegals add nothing to the market. Yes, but if I asked the question "Which one doesn't belong: Disease Crime Theft Ruined Neighborhoods Ruined Schools Ruined Malls Babies?" I think "babies" stands out as being incongruous. If she had listed as "bad things:" hatred, pain, fear, cancer and puppies, even she'd probably think "puppies" was an odd addition to that list. She was in effect, painting babies as being a bad thing on a level similar to disease and crime because she happens to dislike their parentage. That's pretty strange. It suggests to me the question: Would she encourage abortion amongst illegals to prevent these babies from being born? I know she is anti-abortion, but that is perhaps only for the "good babies" and not these (apparently) disgusting immigrant babies.
I agree with enforcement of employment laws. But I am not so sure it will dry up the immigration problems. Life is still better on this side of the border than on the Mexican side of the border with or without employment. We might just succeed in making them unemployed and dependent upon state government for their livelyhood. I think George II's solution to the problem was pretty rational. It included a work permit program. But I really doubt American politicians are ready to get serious about the problem anytime soon. I am sure there will be a lot of words exchanged. And they may even pass a bill and the bill may get signed into law, but based on past experience, I find it hard to believe that we will get serious about border enforcement.
Interesting...here is a paper that indicates that immigrants, including hispanic males and "criminal aliens" are aonly 1/5th as likely to be incarcertaed as "criminal natives", and that the diofferece is not due to the criminal aliens being deported, just the plain old fact that aliens are far less likelt to commit crimes. To quote the abstract: Emphasis added. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229
The only thing you contribute is racist hatred and laughable ignorance. You should do the world a favor and never voice any political opinion ever again.
Not without employment. If they're just going to sit around and go hungry, the vast majority would rather do so in the company of their families back home. The exceptions would be the ones who have kids here already, and would rather keep them in American schools than return home. And how, exactly, is an illegal immigrant supposed to extract a livelihood from the state? Actual citizens can't even do that, generally. People that don't work and aren't independently wealthy are known as "bums" in the US, and can be seen begging for change, digging through garbage and recycling, and sleeping on the street in any major city. Have you ever once met an adult illegal immigrant who was unemployed, or was extracting a "livelihood" from a state? I haven't. And I've met quite a few over the years. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what exactly "the problem" here is. Is it just that they've disrespected the authority of the Federal government by being here without a proper visa? Is it that they mildly depress the wages of high school drop-outs? Is it that they're brown?
I.e., if you are a high school drop-out. There have been major, serious economic studies of the impact of illegal immigrants on the labor market, and the results are about what you expect: it hurts the wages and employment of those that the immigrants compete with directly for jobs (which is to say, high school drop-outs), and it helps everyone else (since we don't have to pay as much in labor for our food, lawn care, etc.). So, who should we really be favoring here? Americans who couldn't even be bothered to complete the free education we paid to give them (and so have no valuable skills, or work ethic, or anyway sufficiently stable lives to handle even laughably easy stuff like high school)? Or an immigrant that would leave his family and travel thousands of miles, at great expense and personal risk, in order to come here and work really hard for cheap? Note that the high school drop-out is also a bigger tax burden than the illegal immigrant throughout his lifetime, since he has access to many more government services by dint of his citizenship. I can certainly tell you which one of those two people sounds more "American," to me.
I don't get the "show me your papers" hype. Doesn't everyone have to show papers? If I drive, I have to have a legal license , a vehicle registration and proof of current insurance all of which are papers requiring other papers to be obtained.W/ out those papers I will be fined and in some cases have the vehicle impounded and be jailed. If my business wants to operate or get a loan, there'a a mountain of papers that need to be verified. Use a credit card or buy a fucking pack of cigarettes, I have to show my ID or "papers"..All of which is to show I'm in compliance of the law. My question is what makes this different? Is AZ different than Ohio, and everyone just trusts the word of everyone else? Obviously, it's a reference to Nazism, as if AZ is giving the police a right to kill the undocumented people. Where is the parallel, cuz it's lost on me?
maybe you forgot that we stole this land for the exact reason we have illegal immigrants for a better life. just unlike the us they dont have enough force to just take it
