Are you suggesting a new, massive "operation wetback"? Yeah, great idea. Police state here we come. And good luck paying for it.
Did you even READ the parts I PULLED OUT about how much that "cheap labor" is actually costing you? Cheap for the contractor, yeah. He passes the real cost on to you and I in the form of taxes. Cheap, my ***!
Try these too:
siliconinvestor.com
Someone else pointed out that that cheap labor just gives farmers and others a good reason not to automate and mechanize. Like that? Maybe we can import Ugandans who will work for 1/10 as much. Oh. And make sure you can't and won't check to see they go back.
Oh. When was it the US became a police state? During "operation wetback" you say? Because I know I missed it and I know enough American history that if it happened before my time, I would know about it.
Or are you suggesting that we just say "please leave now and don't anyone else come in" and expect those already here to quietly leave and those coming to look at pictures of a fence in the desert and say, "¡Mire esa cerca! Debemos permanecer aquí."? Dream on.
Well, I suppose the ICE officers can start off polite. But if they don't come peacefully to be deported, well, they had the chance to avoid violence.
They fence issue is addressed above. Can you afford NOT to build it?
¡Mire esa cerca! Debemos permanecer aquí.
Well, we might have to post the border to make it clear where it is. I think the rest will be clear enough soon enough.
OTOH, with the wall, you don't have that problem, do you?
And even if your dream came true, and they all packed up and left, do you really think that would not have a significant negative impact on the economy? I thought you were smarter than that, Laz.
You (if you would bother to read even excerpted text) know the cost they impose on us. You've seen that in fact a fence could be built. And you've heard arguments for doing without them and you STILL ask?
Message 23600755
Message 23600772
Surely you can read those, They aren't very long.
How 'bout, instead of ranting, you tell me precisely what provisions of the proposed bill you have a problem with and why, what you would propose instead, how you would pay for it, and just how you expect to get your solution passed with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress. That precisely what the two Senators from my state, not to mention John McCain and other sensible leaders, have done and are doing in this process.
All of it? The feds haven't even TRIED to enforce the 1986 laws. Why give them another amnesty when the first just caused further trouble?
Pay for it? Look at what it costs to allow this situation to exist! Let me use a dirty word: tax.
Democrats? There are plenty that are less than enthralled with this bill, although they had a lot to do with torpedoing the enforcement of the 1986 law and shackling the order Patrol. And keeping other federal agencies from reporting illegals. They saw lots of THEIR people- -dirt poor people- -pouring in and helping them win elections. They forgot a lot of them are Catholic and won't vote for a pro-choice candidate- -most of them. I'd say the Dems are beginning to understand their mistake here. Like a lot of Rpublicans have figured out that whether the Iraq war was a good or bad idea, it's been undermannned and poorly run and we're either going to have to put up or pull out.
'Cause if you can't do that, Laz, you have defaulted to the position that the status quo (or whatever the Dems decide to pass without GOP input should ranters like you prevail) is acceptable.
I doubt THAT. I think plenty of heat is going to go towards the Potomac. It's already started. Remember, they tried to pass a slightly different version of this bill last year and couldn't. And part of the reason was that, while GB as for it, a lot of Republicans revolted.
Is the status quo acceptable, Laz?
Well?
You really don't know the answer?
PS: As for your question, "why DO you have a problem with US citizens knowing English?", I can only wonder why your reading comprehension is so poor and yet you expect so much from first generation immigrants. I suggested no such thing, Laz.
I quote from you:
"Another thing we "used to do in this country" is the same thing many anti-immigration zealots are doing today - screaming and shouting about how "we're being overrun", that "they're destroying our culture" because "they refuse to learn English" "
Now how should that be read EXCEPT as a criticism of a requirement to learn English?
Did you know basic English reading and understanding is part of the test for US citizenship? Should we drop that too?
And as for your history of immigration lesson, including citation of "no Irish need apply" signs and racist immigration laws, what exactly is your point? Are you agreeing with me that we have a history of xenophobic spasms in this country, another of which we seem to be experiencing now, or are you just trying to overwhelm me with copy/paste material?
I guess that answers the question as to whether you read anything.
Why? You got a problem with backing your statements?
BTW, YOU raised that whole issue in italics above, not I. So what was YOUR point? |
