Common Ground?

[Gerry Clinchy]

At lower income levels, you may well be right. For example, a person earning $10/hour will still receive the equivalent of almost $7/hour on unemployment if they have worked long enough at their job. However, for someone earning $90,000/year on their job, unemployment is not much of an option since it would provide only about 10-15% of the amount they had been earning.

So Marvin's statement would tend to be an accurate assessment ... while the $7/hr American citizen can sit home on unemployment, the illegal will be happy to work for the $7 since in Mexico he couldn't earn anything. Don't think we have to worry too much about the $90,000/yr people in the scenario.

So, if unemployment benefits for $7/hr workers were limited, they would have the jobs that the illegals are doing?

I don't think amnesty works very well. Reagan did it, and it solved nothing. More illegals came; in even greater numbers. Makes sense to me that eventually they figure another amnesty will occur & they want to be ready to take advantage of it.

And work is definitely the key. I recall one report that illegals in the US shrank as the recession hit. With no work, there was no point in staying.

Illegals may not get unemployment compensation, but I'm sure that those anchor babies are getting Medicaid & other social welfare programs that also extend to their illegally residing mother?

[YardleyLabs]

Before we start - I have addressed that those in charge have a vested interest in the issue not going away - why won't you address that?



The INS is responsible for that - they just need to do their job, for which they are being adequately compensated . Set a timeline, after which they will be unemployed unless the issue is resolved, the issue will disappear.



They can return to their place of origin in the same manner that they got to where they do not belong. As for coming back, chip them & we'll know where they are .



A color coded ID card would do the job, severe penalties for those who aid & abet. (I have to show ID every time I enter a liquor serving area, though it is obvious I am of legal age).



Your unwillingness to drop this is indicative of some level of irrationality . What part of ILLEGAL do you not understand, they have no rights!!!!!!!

Your answers are all non-answers. You said it would be easy for the right person to do rid the country of illegal immigrants. I don't believe that anyone can do it easily without creating a reign of terror because there is no clean or easy way to track down, arrest and deport 12 million men, women and children (not to mention the children that are here illegally and cannot be deported even though their parents are here illegally). The illegal population now represents about 4-5% of our total population with much higher percentages in many parts of the country. That 4-5% may be related to an almost equal number of people who are here legally, including the young children of illegals who are US citizens.

You have not offered a single useful suggestion that would suggest otherwise. You also, by the way, did not "address" people having a conflict of interest, you simply asserted it. An assertion is not an argument. My experience is that most bureucrats are tied up in process and have no idea where the forest lies. That is not a matter of people conspiring to protect their jobs, it is a matter of people fulfilling the assignments they are given.

I did provide an indication of how I believed we could be effective in limiting illegal immigration. It hinges on focusing the overwhelming bulk of our efforts on employers. The fact is that I agree that we do not try very hard. The difference is that I don't think that is a problem of bureaucrats. It is a problem of leadership from the top that does not want businesses to suffer from the loss of that illegal labor.

Your statement that "Your [my] unwillingness to drop this is indicative of some level of irrationality . What part of ILLEGAL do you not understand, they have no rights!!!!!!!" is itself somewhat irrational. You are basically saying that if I disagree with you, I am irrational. Your original statements show no sign of reason. How could I do anything but disagree?

[Marvin S]

Your answers are all non-answers.

I'm not a person who wastes a lot of time on verbiage, I know how to make things happen, so will not waste a lot of time exchanging meaningless drivel with a pencil pusher.

As a student, my professors had issues with my brevity & needless to say my grades suffered, but when in the Real World a lot of those high verbiage people were taking direction from me. That would probably not be consistent with your process .

You have not offered a single useful suggestion that would suggest otherwise. You also, by the way, did not "address" people having a conflict of interest, you simply asserted it. An assertion is not an argument. My experience is that most bureucrats are tied up in process and have no idea where the forest lies. That is not a matter of people conspiring to protect their jobs, it is a matter of people fulfilling the assignments they are given.

U R Joking - I've been involved with these turkeys - In fact, one of my main complaints with both Bushes was their unwillingness to hold their appointed people to their responsibilities.

I did provide an indication of how I believed we could be effective in limiting illegal immigration. It hinges on focusing the overwhelming bulk of our efforts on employers.

You apparently missed my statement - "severe penalties for those who aid & abet" - which would apply to employers, education systems, welfare offices, state governments - all of which do.

Your statement that "Your [my] unwillingness to drop this is indicative of some level of irrationality . What part of ILLEGAL do you not understand, they have no rights!!!!!!!" is itself somewhat irrational. You are basically saying that if I disagree with you, I am irrational. Your original statements show no sign of reason. How could I do anything but disagree?

Your inference that to call these people to task was nazi like is what I was addressing. You made that inference multiple times.

I happen to believe in "Tough Love", leaving a person no doubt as to where they stand, which I believe to be the most humane .

We are thinking of taking a trip in the next couple of years, I'll get a GPS as to where you abide & will plan to park our trailer on your property without asking permission, turn my dogs loose to roam & leave the place a mess when I depart. As your line of reasoning follows that pattern I'm sure you will be OK by that . We hope you have a convenient access to free Electricity & Potable water, we do like our conveniences .