The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 65

Thread: The Immigration Bill

  1. #51
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul young View Post
    I might be a dumb-azz.....suppose you tell me why they're sneaking over the border and staying here?

    Even without work, the children get into public schools; mothers of anchor babies get many social welfare benefits.


    Are you saying that a farmer who drives into one of the Barrios and hires "day workers" who are already lined up and waiting has exercised due diligence in checking for us citizenship or current green cards and has no idea that they are hiring illegals?

    Just looking for clarification.
    There's no doubt that employers are enabling this as well. That doesn't let the govt off the hook for failure to secure the borders. Nor does it excuse the govt for their judicial discretion in enforcing the immigration laws for illegal residents.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,406

    Default

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...e_amnesty_bill
    Yes, I know many here simply hate Limbaugh, but this is an interview with Ted Cruz, and if you think Cruz has something of value to offer, then it's worth reading this transcript.

    One of the things Cruz mentions is that they polled Hispanics in TX, and they are overwhelmingly against amnesty.

    Cruz also mentions that these illegals who are granted legality will be exempt from Obamacare ... thus it will be better for an employer to hire one of these people than an American who needs a job! Obviously, that is insane. It even makes sense to fire an American to hire one of them. The employer doesn't have to provide the illegal with health insurance & also escapes the $2000 penalty. Right there the employer saves $ up front. We're not talking about rocket scientists; we're talking about people who do low-skilled jobs, so it could make a big impact on the most vulnerable American workers. And if those American workers lose their jobs, then they WILL be collecting unemployment and other social welfare benefits.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,406

    Default

    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...1/cj32n1-7.pdf
    Cato study on the economic consequences of amnesty
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,406

    Default

    Even Hugh Hewitt is buying into the fluff of this new immigration bill "guarantee" for the 700-mile fence. Why is it that everyone seems to forget that the 700-mile fence was "required" in the previous amnesty legislation? Did the fence materialize? No. Why do we believe it will materialize now?

    Also slipped into an amendment is wording that essentially voids worry for those who over-stay their visas. Maybe we'll know who they are ... but that doesn't mean anything will be done about it.

    This bill is such smoke and mirrors!
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,406

    Default

    Senator Brian Schatz’s (D-HI) filed an amendment for the immigration bill Wednesday that would allow stateless people in the U.S. to seek conditional lawful status if their nations have been made uninhabitable by climate change.
    Last year alone, more than 32 million people fled their homes around the world because of climate-related disasters. Africa and Asia saw the worst impacts, and the highest number of people displaced last year.
    The implications of this are mind-boggling!

    Guess who decides which immigrants are eligible for such "sanctuary"?
    If enacted, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate individuals or a group of individuals displaced permanently by climate change as stateless persons.
    But just to add some more pork to the bill
    Schatz’s amendment also requires a federal study of the impact of climate change has on internal migration within the U.S., an issue that affects his home state of Hawaii (Alaskans, too, recently became America’s first climate refugees). The Pacific Islands Regional Climate Assessment has noted that in the short term Hawaii will see increased likelihood of coastal flooding and erosion, while “mounting threats” to food, water, infrastructure and safety will eventually cause people to migrate from low-lying islands to high.
    Did you notice that Schatz represents the state of Hawaii?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #56
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul young View Post
    The problem could be greatly reduced if people stopped hiring them. But, of course many business owners would "suffer" as a result. And we can't have that......
    And how many people can detect fake documents and follow the letter of the law.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  7. #57
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul young View Post
    I might be a dumb-azz.....suppose you tell me why they're sneaking over the border and staying here?

    Are you saying that a farmer who drives into one of the Barrios and hires "day workers" who are already lined up and waiting has exercised due diligence in checking for us citizenship or current green cards and has no idea that they are hiring illegals?

    Just looking for clarification.
    Not sure if the I-9 form has been changed but I can tell you that as of 2000 if the law was followed by the employer it would be very easy for an illegal to beat the system. An employer (HR) could not even legally require a SS card be produced but rather just the number. Payroll could require it at any given time.
    ANyone that lives in a state that grants illegals liscences or does not verify status and has an older SS card could simply produce those documents and would appear to be a citizen.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  8. #58
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul young View Post
    Actually, I completely agree that everyone should have to produce valid ID in order to vote. It's law here, and I am asked every time at the polls.- Paul
    BUt what is a valid ID in CT? Back when I lived there and prior to ME changing my name on my ss card due to marraige who would have known that I was not a citizen. MY original ss card did not have these words that were (are) because I haven't had it removed(valid for work only with INS authorization). Nothing on either ID said I was not a citizen(at the time) but rather a legal immigrant. I could have produced both documents and claimed to be a citizen even per the I-9 form. For the record I always gave my green card and got very suprised looks when telling HR that that was actually what they needed.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  9. #59
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,406

    Default

    I think that we can all agree that it is wrong for an illegal immigrant to break our immigration laws; and wrong for an employer to hire such a person if they can determine that they are hiring an illegal immigrant.

    So, it is the govt's job (isn't it?) to make it more difficult for illegals to get in; to send them home when they are discovered; and to assess the proper penalties to the employers who provide jobs.

    It would then be appropriate for the govt to give the employers a reliable means of abiding by the law. E-verify?

    Meanwhile, the govt also has to protect the employer from charges of discrimination as well, by clearly stating how to check for employment eligibility without violating the laws.

    The govt must make good and reasonable laws, and then enforce those laws consistently. All the rest is simply political chicanery. When even ICE sues their govt for preventing them from honoring their oath to enforce the laws, there is definitely some kind of problem.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  10. #60
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    I think that we can all agree that it is wrong for an illegal immigrant to break our immigration laws; and wrong for an employer to hire such a person if they can determine that they are hiring an illegal immigrant.

    So, it is the govt's job (isn't it?) to make it more difficult for illegals to get in; to send them home when they are discovered; and to assess the proper penalties to the employers who provide jobs.

    It would then be appropriate for the govt to give the employers a reliable means of abiding by the law. E-verify?

    Meanwhile, the govt also has to protect the employer from charges of discrimination as well, by clearly stating how to check for employment eligibility without violating the laws.

    The govt must make good and reasonable laws, and then enforce those laws consistently. All the rest is simply political chicanery. When even ICE sues their govt for preventing them from honoring their oath to enforce the laws, there is definitely some kind of problem.
    The first thing they have to do is make a SS card less easy to duplicate and then change the i-9 form. The last I dealt with I-9's an employer could not even require a ss card for the form.
    Heck our payroll system would kick out a name ss# non match but that had nothing to do with the feds and every kick back we got was for white females. They were getting kicked back but nothing we could do about it. They simply did not bother to get a new card with their married name.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •