Liberal solution to illegal immigration
in [Golf]
|
Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: BAR on 6 May 2010 18:29 In article <ba6a1841-8d1e-428d-9e84- 670803f914ac(a)l28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > > Nice try but there has been too much time that has passed. You will > > forever be known as they guy who wants a seperate waiting room at the ER > > so that you don't have be offended by the smells of the masses. > > -- Only by you. You must have missed Carb's description of his adventures at the ER. He made a point of how he was offended that he had to be in the same waiting room as the smelly illegal aliens. > > > > > Anyway, I think the only thing that will stop illegal immigration is for > > > the economy to get so bad here that it's not worth the trip to get here. > > > Otherwise, it's simple market forces. Labor goes where the pay is > > > greatest. > > > > Is that what Obama is doing. I would never have guessed that the > > purposeful destruction of the US economy was an effort to stop illegal > > immigration. Does Obama know he is working towards getting rid of a > > staunch Democrat voting block. > > Earth to Bert: the economy is improving. GDP is growing, consumer > spending is up, manufacturing output is up, inflation is low... Where are the jobs? You can't have an economic recovery without jobs. When we return to an unemployment rate of less than 5.5% then we will have recovered. Until then we are fooling ourselves thinking that we are recovering, that is unless you willing to accept a permanent 10% unemployment rate.
From: BAR on 6 May 2010 18:34 In article <4be2ad6b$0$4893$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Thu, 06 May 2010 07:33:41 -0400, BAR wrote: > > In article <4be2143c$0$12286$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:33:35 -0400, BAR wrote: > >>> In article <4be204cc$0$4988$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>> > >>>> The high standard of living that we enjoy is due in part to the > >>>> availability of a large pool of cheap labor. It isn't economically > >>>> practical to kick them all out. Your party will see to it that it > >>>> never happens anyway. You do know this, right? > >>> > >>> You do realize that you are making an argument for keeping illegal > >>> immagration for the sole purpose of keeping prices low to ensure > >>> your current standard of living. That is extremely selfish of you. > >> > >> I advocated nothing. I described policies implicitly supported by > >> your your own party. I personally think the whole situation is > >> ridiculous. You true believers are being taken advantage of. The > >> Republicans, like the Democrats, are sponsored by big agriculture and > >> by many other large industries who are depended on this practically > >> unlimited pool of cheap labor. They are absolutely not going to allow > >> the source of their profits to be kicked out. > > > > The Democrats are supported by big banking, big oil (BP) and Goldman > > Sachs. > > As are the Republicans. > > You see Bert, being a politician is expensive. Re-election campaigns > cost millions of dollars. So politicians, Democrat and Republican both, > are always looking for campaign contributions. In exchange for these > contributions, they do favors for their contributors. No kidding! Didn't Obama break his promise to accept federal matching funds and just go with contributions? He received well over $1 Bn dollars. Do you suppose all of those people who contributed wanted something for their contributions. > It's almost like it doesn't matter which party is in power, because big > banking, big oil (BP) and Goldman Sachs are happy to bribe whoever > happens to be in office. Sorry, Obama and the Democrats are on the hot seat right now and they are the ones who are sucking down the lions share of cash for play. > So ends our discussion of the blindingly obvious. Why, because you said so? Did you go to the Billy Clark school of discussion?
From: Carbon on 6 May 2010 18:43 On Thu, 06 May 2010 18:34:15 -0400, BAR wrote: > In article <4be2ad6b$0$4893$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> On Thu, 06 May 2010 07:33:41 -0400, BAR wrote: >> >>> The Democrats are supported by big banking, big oil (BP) and Goldman >>> Sachs. >> >> As are the Republicans. >> >> You see Bert, being a politician is expensive. Re-election campaigns >> cost millions of dollars. So politicians, Democrat and Republican >> both, are always looking for campaign contributions. In exchange for >> these contributions, they do favors for their contributors. > > No kidding! Didn't Obama break his promise to accept federal matching > funds and just go with contributions? He received well over $1 Bn > dollars. Do you suppose all of those people who contributed wanted > something for their contributions. > >> It's almost like it doesn't matter which party is in power, because >> big banking, big oil (BP) and Goldman Sachs are happy to bribe >> whoever happens to be in office. > > Sorry, Obama and the Democrats are on the hot seat right now and they > are the ones who are sucking down the lions share of cash for play. > >> So ends our discussion of the blindingly obvious. > > Why, because you said so? Did you go to the Billy Clark school of > discussion? The notion that politicians of both parties routinely do favors in exchange for campaign contributions is so self-evidently true that I thought even people as biased as yourself would instantly grasp it. I sincerely apologize if I have over-estimated your capacity for rational thought.
From: BAR on 6 May 2010 18:44 In article <2010050612185780173-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom>, none_of_your_business(a)all.com says... > > > The minute you come up with a practical solution for rounding up 14 to > 20 million illegal aliens and deporting them, then maybe your solution > might make some practical sense. Sorry, Bert, but that ship has > sailed. There's no sending all of 'em back. You're just never going > to identify them all or find a way to "ship" them. Ain't gonna happen, > even if Lou Dobbs (or you) were elected President. Are you a US citizen? No. Get on the bus. > So, now, we return to the real world. > > The rest of your recommendation is not all that far off from what has > been proposed. > > Although I find it quite odd that you omitted one important part of the > puzzle: securing the border. I would use the US military to secure our borders. Anyone attempting to cross at any point other than an official US border crossing will be shot dead on sight. > > That has to happen first. > > Second, you have to eliminate their reason for crossing the border -- > by preventing undocumented workers from being hired. There are several > ways to do this, starting with penalizing employers to hire illegals. > And I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of an ID card (I have one, > it's called a Social Security card). No, just shoot them making an illegal crossing, their reason for crossing goes away very quickly. Unless they cross legally. > Third, you're going to have to allow a pathway to citizenship. They > have to go to the back of the line, like anybody else. They have to be > taxed (most already are), and they have to pay a fine. Then get in > line. But a pathway to citizenship is the best way. No, ship them back to their country of origin. You should not benefit from your illegal activity. We don't let other criminals profit from their criminal activities why should illegal aliens profit from their criminal activity. > As for tatooing something on their forehead, I will assume you're > speaking metaphorically. But knowing what I do of your beliefs, it > wouldn't surprise me in the least if you meant that part literally. > Always the humanitarian. NOT. No. I am serious about tattooing them. There has to be a price paid for committing a crime. And, it will make identifying repeat offenders that much easier. > Bottom line: When I see you, or any of your kids, standing on the side > of the freeway selling oranges, I'll start to believe that these > undocumented workers are actually taking jobs from Americans that > Americans WANT. But I don't remember seeing you outside working on my > lawn. The problem is that you view them as undocumented workers when they are illegal aliens who have committed a crime and they need to be held accountable for their crimes. And, they should not profit from their crimes. > Although it might be a good career move for you. Shoot, I get my quarterly MBO check tomorrow. Brings a whole new meaning to incentive based pay.
From: dene on 6 May 2010 18:52
"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4be34111$0$4888$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Thu, 06 May 2010 12:49:06 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > > "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message > > news:2010050612314318056-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... > > > >> But as to the Arizona law specifically... > >> > >> But where the Arizona law really runs into problems is where police > >> in that state won't stop me because I "look" illegal, but they could > >> stop Maria or Miguel, my neighbors, who are both second-generation US > >> citizens, both born in this country to immigrant citizens of the US. > >> That's where this law runs into serious constitutional questions. > >> And that's why I oppose it. It places legal citizens in situations > >> we've only read about in history books and seen in movies about the > >> Gestapo in Germany. It's unAmerican. > > > > This is wrong Randy. The law specifically states there must be lawful > > contact BEFORE any paper checking can happen. They cannot simply pull > > you over for looking a specific way. > > Yeah, because the police would never routinely pull visible minorities > over like that. I wonder if being smelly is a justiable cause. ;> -Greg |