Large Scale Central

Candidate Matchmaking? (poly tickz, don't read)

General Discussion
#21
Dave Healy said:
mark Dash.... said:
Ric, those illegals have nothing better to do than ****
"Those illegals" have been coming to the US for at least forty years.

They have made an awesome contribution to the US economy.

They wouldn’t have come, and wouldn’t have stayed, if Americans hadn’t made it worth their while to do so.

One family working in northern Indiana in the mid-60s had a swag of kids, and loved every one of them.

The father, Rey, worked as a roof tiler. Yeah, Rey - not “illegal”. A good bloke with a name, a face and a life.

Other folks worked in different jobs, like tomato picking on small farms south of Gary.

They didn’t come chasing handouts - they bore the heat of the day, and earned their daily bread.

Small kindnesses from a few Americans meant a lot to them.

Before you finalise your opinion on illegal immigrants, have a look at John McKain’s policies.

He makes a lot of sense.

Better yet, have a chat with a small farmer.

Ask him how easy it is to get good workers at a price he can afford.


I beg to differ…

(1) 12-20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. have hundreds of thousands of children, who are extended birthright citizenship – at an annual cost to taxpayers of between six and ten billion dollars.

Moreover, the “economic benefit” argument for “guest workers” is suffering a significant trade deficit. On average, the households of illegal aliens are paying about $9,000 in various taxes, and receiving about $30,000 in benefits – direct benefits, social services, public services and population based services like education.

I don’t consider that an “awesome contribution”.

While Congress fiddles, 3,200 of our Latino neighbors illegally cross our border with Mexico every day.

As to whether they should receive these benefits…

(2) Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (as proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It explicitly referred to children born to U.S. citizens and those born to aliens lawfully in the U.S.

Why did the amendment’s sponsors insist on adding, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?

For insight, consider the words of Sen. Jacob Howard, co-author of the amendment’s citizenship clause. In 1866, he wrote that the amendment “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States…”

Any policy that DOES NOT follow those laws is NOT a good policy!

While it may make some bleeding heart liberal feel all warm and fuzzy to think they’re giving a helping hand to some poor, oppressed foreigner, they’re efforts would go a lot further if they put as much effort into changing the economic conditions of that foreign country or at the very least, making as big a stink about that as they do about how the US treat’s them. We should treat them as criminals, that’s what they are.

#22

Jerry, if congress approves limiting the amount of legal immigrants and the same amount of people want to move to this country, what do they do, they sneak in and become ilegal immigrants, if you watch that video and only the LEGAL immigrants are forcasted, imagine (or do the math) what a burden ‘those damn ilegals’ add.

Dave - Rey was a criminal, he illegally came to this country, he illegally obtained a job, he more than likely did not pay taxes making him a criminal, he was is and always will be a criminal, just becasue he’s willing to do work for less than some else, or work that’s not worthy of the locals, does not make it right. Just makes the locals the blame for exploiting him and using him as an excuse not to do the work that they should be doing

#23

Um, fellows. I posted this to help people make an INFORMED decision on the current candidates or lack thereof. I PURPOSELY did NOT tell people who they should vote for, rather gave them a tool to help make up their own mind.

This thread was NOT posted for y’all to start a damned cat fight over immigration, legal or illegal. All the cryin and bellyachin in the world to people who can’t change stuff won’t make an ounce of difference. It will just torque everybody else off If you feel that strongly about it DON’T post it HERE, WRITE your congresspeople instead!

Geez, I really HOPE Bob locks this thread

#24

Mik, Bob doesn’t support censorship. Besides, it’s a known fact that any thread started at LSC is subject to getting hijacked and subject changed. :smiley:

#25

Mik:

First, I really appreciate you starting the topic. I especially enjoyed ‘adjusting’ the answers and seeing the results.

I do believe immigration is one of the most important issues affecting our country and thus should be high on the list of political points. I don’t see that expressing our thoughts on that or any other important political subject in response to the Candidate Matching topic is out of line. In any event, Bob will decide when enough is enough.

mark Dash.... said:
Jerry, if congress approves limiting the amount of legal immigrants and the same amount of people want to move to this country, what do they do,,,,
The number of legal immigrants is already "limited". The point of the video was that we need to return to the previous lower limits for legal immigration. People who are not CRIMINALS will do what I did in order to live and work in the UK and Germany during the 1970s: Apply for and receive a residence and work visa, then abide by its conditions. That worked very well for me and for my host countries. Good people don't start by coming here as CRIMINALS.

As to the arguments that ‘. . . lettuce will cost $3.00 / head . . .’ if it isn’t harvested by a CRIMINAL, I’ll pay the price. All our current policy toward illegal immigration does is provide a convenient low wage, no benefit, no legal recourse labor pool for corporations and other folks who don’t like paying reasonable prices and abiding by the law.

For all who support this ILLEGAL tidal wave, please send me your zip code and I’ll take up a collection to buy one way tickets for the hundreds (more likely thousands) of young hispanic males who currently reside ILLEGALLY in our local community. You can then enjoy the gang driven assaults and robberies, the gatherings of guys propositioning your wife and daughters outside the minimart and the bar where we are now afraid to go alone, the huge indoor and outdoor marijuana and methamphetamine production sites, the dumping of raw human sewage into the creek behind your house, along with the financial and resource drains on the schools, public health facilities and other community resources that these CRIMINALS have brought with them.

Lots of us are fed up with it.

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#26

Jerry, I didn’t watch the video Ric posted. Ric and I have touched this topic on another thread. He and I hold different opinions on the issue. No problem - I’m OK, he’s OK and guess what? The sun rose in the east again this morning.

The issue I’m addressing is not how to handle illegal immigration going forward. I can see ample national security justification for toughening the laws.

Nor am I overly bothered about tightening the screws on recent arrivals, although I accept the definition of “recent” will depend on who’s defining it.

Finally, anyone who wants to engage in violence or anti-social behaviour deserves what’s coming to him, wherever he comes from.

I argue there is a case to be made for allowing long-term illegal immigrants who have not engaged in anti-social activity to be provided with a pathway to US citizenship. As I understand McCain’s position, that’s what he’s on about. If I’m wrong, please set me straight.

My position is based on personal experience working with illegal immigrants in Indiana in the 1960s and in New York between 1999 and 2003. I’m not suggesting my experience is necessarily typical, nor am I suggesting that reasoning from the particular to the general is logically valid. I am saying I have had considerable close-up and personal contact with illegal immigrants, and base my opinions - cautiously - on that experience.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to lump folks who have never run afoul of the law and who have worked in the US for years, even decades, in the same category as young thugs who slipped over the border 36 hours ago and have already held up three gas stations. That appears to be your view, and Ken’s, and Mark’s. I respectfully suggest you may want to reconsider.

#27

If they’re here illegally, does that count as “running afoul of the law” or “engaging in anti-social behavior”? The key word here being “Illegal”? If they did it 36 years ago or 36 minutes ago, what’s the difference?

As a truck driver making deliveries to various customers I’ve had plenty of contact with immigrants, both legal and illegal, and frankly, I can’t tell the difference, but it still hasn’t changed my mind. If I break the law, I get punished. Does that change simply because someones status is an “illegal immigrant”?

#28
Ken Brunt said:
If they did it 36 years ago or 36 minutes ago, what's the difference?
Ken, the obvious answer to that is 35+ years (you can work out the months and minutes) in which they made a contribution to the American economy, kept out of trouble with the law and raised families where the kids were very likely taught the value of hard work and the importance of decent dealings with other people.

However, I don’t think that’s what you meant. I think your point is how long someone has been illegally resident in the US makes no difference. They should be treated the same.

If I had a bloke who’d worked for me 36 years, and another who’d worked for me 36 minutes, I wouldn’t treat them the same. Anyone who could put up with me for 36 years deserves special recognition, and the 36 minute guy hasn’t proven anything yet.

You say “If I break the law, I get punished”. If it’s that simple, you’re either the world’s best truck driver or the world’s unluckiest truck driver. You got caught and fined every time you committed a traffic violation? Give me a break!

If you gave me a buck for every time I’d done something illegal and didn’t get caught, then took two bucks away for every time I got nailed, I reckon I’d be a wealthy man.

Actually, probably not - I’d have spent it all on trains . . . .

#29
Dave Healy said:
Ken Brunt said:
If they did it 36 years ago or 36 minutes ago, what's the difference?
You say "If I break the law, I get punished". If it's that simple, you're either the world's best truck driver or the world's unluckiest truck driver. You got caught and fined every time you committed a traffic violation? Give me a break!
I'm not talking about minor traffic violations. We all have them from time to time. I'm talking about Federal Laws and Regulations, mandated by the constitution. Driving while under the influence, no ICC registration, no CDL, no IFTA registration, and a host of others, it wouldn't take long for the DOT to shut me down whether I did it for 36 minutes or 36 years.

The point I’m trying to make is that most of these so called “upstanding citizens” think they’re entitled to the same benefits and protections I am. If they’re so “upstanding”, apply for citizenship like my ancestors had to do. My grandfather came over from Ireland and worked for Ford Motor Company during WWII. They were building tanks for the war effort. He’d been in this country for 20 years. The FBI came to the plant to question his status. Do you think he’d still be in this country if he was here illegally?

#30

The key word here is “Illegal”. This is the same crowd that wanted to defend the argument of what “Is” is. That is all lawyer style mumbo jumbo that most Americans do not tolerate. The poor lawyers (judges) can try to legislate from the bench, but they still can’t control the ballot box. Believe me, in Illinois (Chicago), they have tried. :wink:

#31
Ken Brunt said:
Dave Healy said:
Ken Brunt said:
If they did it 36 years ago or 36 minutes ago, what's the difference?
You say "If I break the law, I get punished". If it's that simple, you're either the world's best truck driver or the world's unluckiest truck driver. You got caught and fined every time you committed a traffic violation? Give me a break!
I'm not talking about minor traffic violations. We all have them from time to time. I'm talking about Federal Laws and Regulations, mandated by the constitution. Driving while under the influence, no ICC registration, no CDL, no IFTA registration, and a host of others, it wouldn't take long for the DOT to shut me down whether I did it for 36 minutes or 36 years.

The point I’m trying to make is that most of these so called “upstanding citizens” think they’re entitled to the same benefits and protections I am. If they’re so “upstanding”, apply for citizenship like my ancestors had to do. My grandfather came over from Ireland and worked for Ford Motor Company during WWII. They were building tanks for the war effort. He’d been in this country for 20 years. The FBI came to the plant to question his status. Do you think he’d still be in this country if he was here illegally?


While I don’t agree with you, I do understand your point of view. My Dad was from Cork city, and could remember the “No Irish need apply” signs he and his father saw walking the streets of New York looking for work. Mom was born in Brooklyn, but her family had just arrived from eastern Europe.

It looks like we regard the seriousness of various offences differently. You mention DOI. I’d regard a drunken US citizen who runs a red light and causes a crash that kills or maims people as a far more serious offender than the 36-year-resident illegal alien we were discussing in the previous post. For me, the two aren’t even close in their degree of seriousness. For you, it appears they are - or perhaps not? Perhaps you regard the illegal alien as by far the worse offender of the two?

I take your point about illegal immigrants who “think they’re entitled to the same benefits and portections as I am.” That’s fair comment. However, it doesn’t dovetail with my experience. No illegal I ever knew expected to be treated that way - quite the opposite. The line was keep it quiet, let me work at whatever I can get, no trouble and, for heaven’s sake, no contact with the authorities.

#32
Quote:
It looks like we regard the seriousness of various offences differently. You mention DOI. I'd regard a drunken US citizen who runs a red light and causes a crash that kills or maims people as a far more serious offender than the 36-year-resident illegal alien we were discussing in the previous post. For me, the two aren't even close in their degree of seriousness. For you, it appears they are - or perhaps not? Perhaps you regard the illegal alien as by far the worse offender of the two?
Here you're reading more into it than what I was implying. With a CDL, the threshold for being DUI is stricter than a regular drivers license and the penalty more severe. With a CDL, you have to take a drug test and Physical every 2 years and have the medical card with you when you drive. No, I'm not comparing a fatal traffic accident with an illegal immigrant.

I can see that we’re going to agree to disagree …:wink:

#33

But where the problem lies today is that these illegal immigrants DO expect the same benefits. That’s what is making the situation so bad in California and other border states. The courts have upheld that these states cannot refuse services because they are illegals. Thus they can get food stamps, welfare, tax our educational system, demand bilingual teachers, get access to free health care and the list goes on. This isn’t right. I have no problem with having a guest worker program…providing the guest workers do not have access to our tax paid benefits and their children don’t automatically become US citizens. If businesses want to sponsor these people and pay them less than nothing, then these businesses should be the ones to have to pay for any needed assistance. We the tax payer should not have to subsidize these peoples substandard wages.

#34
Warren Mumpower said:
But where the problem lies today is that these illegal immigrants DO expect the same benefits. That's what is making the situation so bad in California and other border states. The courts have upheld that these states cannot refuse services because they are illegals. Thus they can get food stamps, welfare, tax our educational system, demand bilingual teachers, get access to free health care and the list goes on. This isn't right. I have no problem with having a guest worker program..providing the guest workers do not have access to our tax paid benefits and their children don't automatically become US citizens. If businesses want to sponsor these people and pay them less than nothing, then these businesses should be the ones to have to pay for any needed assistance. We the tax payer should not have to subsidize these peoples substandard wages.
Warren, I didn't know that. In fact, the thought never occurred to me.

The illegal immigrants I know would never have demanded ANYTHING. The whole idea was to stay low on the radar. Even the little they earned, when converted to pesos, escudos, zlotys or rubles, was big money to the folks back home.

I agree with you about the benefits aspect of illegal immigration. There is no way people who have been lifelong contributors to the tax system should be treated the same as people who haven’t. If that’s what the courts are saying, I can see why it upsets people.

However, in health care at least, I hope the benefits you enjoy are better than what illegal immigrants receive. Here are two examples:

  1. A young eastern European who overstayed his visa in 2002 needed a tooth pulled. He obviously had no health insurance, and there was no question of getting any benefits from the state of Illinois, where he was working at the time. However, he discovered a university in Chicago that needed volunteers with dental problems for their trainee dentists to work on. I’ll spare you the details, except to say that this young bloke has a high pain threshold and the tooth came out - eventually.

  2. My understanding is that the free health care clinics in California serve all comers, including illegal immigrants and Australians visiting the US who were silly enough not to purchase overseas health insurance. The only one I have heard of personally was in Oakland. Again, like Chicago, lots of trainees and problematic treatment.

Neither of the people involved in the two examples, above, had any complaints. They were happy to take what they could get. If I’d been paying US taxes all my life and that was the best I could get, I’d be unhappy - REALLY unhappy!

My contention - and this is where I part company from everyone else who has taken part in this conversation - is that long-term illegal immigrants who have stayed out of trouble while working in the US should be offered a path to citizenship. That path has to include paying taxes (i.e., no more cash economy) and a waiting period. Isn’t McCain talking about 13 years?

I would’ve thought limited access to benefits for these folks, commensurate with the taxes they’re paying, is fair, especially if the free health care they receive is of the standard described in this post.

#35

Health care in America is another sore subject. There isn’t any…except for the poor. Those in the lower working classes, should they get sick, either have to hope their employer provided them with decent coverage or go without. Here you have to sell your house, car and family to get free healthcare. You have to be either destitute or wealthy enough to afford good insurance. Otherwise you are screwed. Here good insurance costs more than what a lot of families make in a month. Another really sore spot is that the unemployed/unemployable poor live better with welfare benefits than does the lower class working families.

#36

I love the thinking (or lack thereof) of the defenders of illegal immigration! The ‘. . . they’re just good folks, not hurting anything . . .’ attitude is one big lie.

I especially love it coming from someone who doesn’t live here in the U.S. where we are overwhelmed. The real fact is that ILLEGAL aliens are CRIMINALS, who cost us at every turn by demanding and using services while making minimal or zero contributions to the communities where many of them pursue their further CRIMINAL enterprises.

As one small example, over 2/3 of our local PROPERTY TAX SUPPORTED, 100% VOLUNTEER fire department’s emergency responses are to car crashes. Since this is a Community Services District operation, supported by our taxes and donations, they must, by state law, provide the appropriate pro-forma emergency response to every reported incident. There is a minimum response level set by state law that requires at least one fire truck, one rescue unit and the ambulance to go to every reported incident. Manning levels for emergency response vehicles is similarly set by state law, so that requires three volunteers for each fire apparatus plus two EMTs for the ambulance. That means that 24 hours / day, 7 days / week, a minimum of 8 unpaid people will drop what they are doing and respond (with red lights and sirens) to the incident.

Our rural district is over 40 miles from end to end, with an even larger actual response area due to the lack of other responders and / or mutual aid agreements, so our units put lots of mile on and our volunteers put in lots of hours. Fuel, oil and tires, mechanical wear and tear, and vehicle maintenance are costly items, and the volunteer’s response is costly in both monetary and manpower terms.

I’m not certain of the ratio at the moment, but when I was District Manager, well over 1/2 of the responses to motor vehicle accidents found at least one of the cars unoccupied. The driver and his companions had taken to the bushes in order to (as Dave Healy wrote) “. . . never run afoul of the law . . .”. These are people who commit a CRIMINAL act by coming here ILLEGALLY, commit more CRIMINAL acts by staying here ILLEGALLY, then cost us in terms of dollars and human efforts by further CRIMINAL acts. (Leaving the scene of an accident is ILLEGAL in California.) These CRIMINALS driving around without benefit of training, license and insurance are damaging my community and its future and are a drag on the economy, just by continuing their ILLEGAL activities.

Then there is the family of ~9 ILLEGAL aliens who live in the trashed (by them) house behind me, openly growing commercial quantities of marijuana and operating several unlicensed, ILLEGAL taco wagons. The papa is under indictment for meth production and drug sales (from his taco wagons), but the state has decide not to arrest him because he needs dialysis and the prison would become responsible for his medical care. His ILLEGAL enterprise continues unabated. His 20- something sons continue to terrorize the community, but law enforcement in California has a ‘hands-off’ policy toward ILLEGALs, as that is too much trouble. As a deputy friend recently said, “What’s the use of busting them, when they are back in the county before I can get back out on patrol.”

The 6 ILLEGAL alien guys living in the ILLEGAL trailer on the lot next door to me don’t have a water or septic system as is required by the county, the state, and common health standards all over the civilized world. They apparently do have good entertainment as there are two satellite dishes on the roof of the trailer that the county health and housing officials say “. . . appears to be uninhabited.” I assume they were just working on their “. . . never run afoul of the law . . .” program by hiding out when the authorities visited, but in the meantime, they continue to pollute the creek where their ILLEGAL sewage runs.

Do I correctly assume that a bank robber who otherwise “. . . never run(s) afoul of the law . . .” should also get a free pass?

As far as various amnesty programs, we have had at least three of those in my lifetime. The end result is an even larger ILLEGAL population, as we have surely taught them that if they just get here, they are immune from all and will eventually be legitimized. Some amnesty program.

As I wrote before, many of us are fed up with this. Rant over.

Now back to building my new David Fletcher designed, Bronson-Tate manufactured model of SPCRR caboose #47!

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#37

So, let be get this straight.
A person commits a particularly nasty crime.
35+ years, he lives an exemplary life.
Model to the community.
Then, they figure out what he’s done.

Watch some of the cops and court shows sometime.

If it’s illegal, it’s illegal, no matter how nice a person you are.

#38

Jerry, your experience of illegal immigrants and mine are so different as to be unrecognisable.

That said, our experiences do intersect at one point. I know what the neighbours from hell are like. We lived with Aboriginal welfare two houses down for nearly five years in the late '70s, after we got married.

Dealing with those folks was a no-win situation. Go in too hard, it’s assault or worse. Too soft, the women use you, the men hate you.

I try to avoid letting this experience cloud my judgment. I don’t like letting emotion prevail over reason, but sometimes it happens.

Going back to Ken’s number (where did you get 36 from, mate?), I’ll say it again. If a man illegally enters a country, works hard for 36 years and behaves in a way you’d expect a good neighbour to behave, it’s reasonable to offer him a path to citizenship.

Thirty-six minutes is a different thing, as is unlawful behaviour (well, maybe not a parking ticket). I think you misunderstood my comment about “never running afoul of the law” to mean “guilty. but never got caught”. Any of the examples you cited would be sufficient cause for a one-way ticket back to Mexico, Moldova or wherever. To use Dave’s example, that would also hold for any “particularly nasty crime” - no statute of limitations should apply, ever.

Not all illegal immigrants fit the stereotypes you’ve described. The ones that don’t deserve a fair go. I can think of a lot nastier crimes than entering a country illegally to escape poverty, or to help your family back home.

#39

Dave,
I have refrained from any comment on this debate until now as the subject matter is USA party political. As such it is inappropriate for me, a foreigner, to comment on such matters.

However, now that you have introduced the Australia Aboriginals as a metaphor for the “neighbours” from hell:

Dave Healy said:
Jerry, your experience of illegal immigrants and mine are so different as to be unrecognisable.

That said, our experiences do intersect at one point. I know what the neighbours from hell are like. We lived with Aboriginal welfare two houses down for nearly five years in the late '70s, after we got married.

Dealing with those folks was a no-win situation. Go in too hard, it’s assault or worse. Too soft, the women use you, the men hate you.

I try to avoid letting this experience cloud my judgment. I don’t like letting emotion prevail over reason, but sometimes it happens.

SNIP.


I feel I must comment.

I know you are not saying Australian Aboriginals are “illegal immigrants”, but, to even use them as a metaphor for “neighbours from hell” is most offensive. To me and no doubt to Australian Aboriginals in general.
Just in case USA readers are not familiar with the history of how the White Man dispossessed the Australian Aboriginal of his Country, please let me remind them of the events of only 200 odd years ago.

Ever since the White man has been here in this great southland we have tortured, murdered, ill treated, stolen children and generally made their lives a misery.

It is no wonder they are anti social towards us.
After all, they had no experience of anti social behaviour and drunkenness until we taught them how to do it.

I respectfully suggest you try and use another example of “neighbours from hell”, as you put it.

#40

I regret you find the comment offensive, Tony. I’ll let it stand, with three caveats:

  1. If you can tell me your wife was threatened by Aboriginals, your kid beaten up by Aboriginals, your house broken into by Aboriginals, and the police were unable to assist you with any of this, leaving you to deal with it, I might reconsider.

  2. If you can tell me you’ve had an Aboriginal woman, her face half-covered in blood, knock on your door in the middle of the night, then get cleaned up by your wife while you guard the door to ensure the sick piece of garbage that did that to her can’t do it again, I might reconsider.

  3. If you can tell me you’ve gone over to a house like that, knocked on the door and gone in to try to do the right thing, I might reconsider.

If any of those caveats apply to you, I’m keen to hear how you handled the situation and how it affected your attitude towards your neighbours, whatever the colour of their skin.

I agree with your historical exposition, though my understanding is there was plenty of what I’d call anti-social behaviour among Aboriginals before Europeans arrived. I base that opinion on my reading of Henry Reynolds, as sympathetic a historian to Aboriginals as you will find.

Sure, terra nullius was totally wrong - for all I know, many Aboriginals may consider you and me illegal immigrants. I support the PM’s upcoming apology, and I thought Mal Brough’s intervention in the NT was fair enough. However, none of that relates directly to what we, as a family, lived with for almost five years in an eastern suburb of Perth.

I can understand why Jerry might feel the same way about his illegal immigrant neighbours. Because I’ve had a similar experience, Jerry’s comments carry a special resonance for me. No one should have to put up with neighbours like that.

My only disagreement with Jerry, Ken, Dave, Mark and whoever else has registered interest in this discussion is that I don’t believe ALL illegal immigrants should be tarred with the same brush. They do.

Similarly, I have no quarrel with Aboriginals in general. I had serious problems with these Aboriginals in particular, problems that affected my family’s health and safety. I sought help, there was none, so I dealt with it.

This isn’t a “metaphor” - those Aboriginals were the worst neighbours we have ever had. “Neighbours from hell” is an insult to the Devil, not to that particular lot.