Lawbreakers hosted at SOTU by Democrats

[gatornana]

Originally Posted by oaklandroadie

4 Democrat Congresspersons and FLOTUS to host illegal immigrants tonite. As well as a host of victims of gun violence. The blog is conservative, but it provides links.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/12/de...-of-the-union/

The Obama administration isn't deporting them, permitting them to stay. It may be splitting hairs but they're currently here legally.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

What is astounding is your unwillingness to admit there is a problem with people illegally entering this country.

Answer the question. Whom does it benefit to deport a college grad who has lived here fir 20 years?

As for migrants taking more than they put in, Google the billions lost in states like Alabama and Georgia that passed anti-immigration laws. Sure, there are those that just take, and they should be deported. But those here for years, adding to the economy, and forced to live in the shadows should be allowed to pay a fine and visa and stay. And in doing so, we keep the billions flowing through the economy and siphon off a few billion from money leaving the country immigrants are currently sending home, whom does it harm?

[gator996]

Originally Posted by oaklandroadie

She's an illegal. She should be deported after repaying every dime she took out of the social system intended for our citizens. Then she can get in line to come here, just like my wife did 22 years ago when she was a minor.

Maybe Rubio & his family should self-deport and go to the back of the line also, huh?

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I'm not really into casting stones at peoples decisions they make during the course of their lives. Many people have done things they are not proud of today.

In a thread started about illegal immigrants you say this.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

In a thread started about illegal immigrants you say this.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Who exactly did I cast judgement on?

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by gator996

Maybe Rubio & his family should self-deport and go to the back of the line also, huh?

Only because he's not on your team. How childish.

You'd be lickin his boots if he were a Dem.

[gator996]

LittleBlue

This isn't about me...its about how you conservatives here state you stand for something until the party tells you who to follow.

His family came here illegally, in your conservative mind....how can you even have him in your party?

[LittleBlueLW]

Thankfully Im not a pub so try again!

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by gator996

LittleBlue

This isn't about me...its about how you conservatives here state you stand for something until the party tells you who to follow.

His family came here illegally, in your conservative mind....how can you even have him in your party?

Not sure you are correct here. Cuban immigrants fleeing Castro are illegal? Better clear out Miami then.

[oaklandroadie]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Answer the question. Whom does it benefit to deport a college grad who has lived here fir 20 years?

As for migrants taking more than they put in, Google the billions lost in states like Alabama and Georgia that passed anti-immigration laws. Sure, there are those that just take, and they should be deported. But those here for years, adding to the economy, and forced to live in the shadows should be allowed to pay a fine and visa and stay. And in doing so, we keep the billions flowing through the economy and siphon off a few billion from money leaving the country immigrants are currently sending home, whom does it harm?

Basing enforcement of the law on benefit (prejudiced and perceived benefit at that) might just set Western Civilization back to pre-Magna Carta days.

While in the short term Alabama and Georgia have suffered, in the long term they will benefit.

As an aside, when illegal immigrants go to college, do they pay out of state fees? My wife was legal and paid those...

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Answer the question. Whom does it benefit to deport a college grad who has lived here fir 20 years?

As for migrants taking more than they put in, Google the billions lost in states like Alabama and Georgia that passed anti-immigration laws. Sure, there are those that just take, and they should be deported. But those here for years, adding to the economy, and forced to live in the shadows should be allowed to pay a fine and visa and stay. And in doing so, we keep the billions flowing through the economy and siphon off a few billion from money leaving the country immigrants are currently sending home, whom does it harm?

My point was the boarder and the boarder alone. We simply can't grant amnesty and continue to have a porous boarder. If you want to go the amnesty route fine, but plug the holes first.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

My point was the boarder and the boarder alone. We simply can't grant amnesty and continue to have a porous boarder. If you want to go the amnesty route fine, but plug the holes first.

Talk about closing the barn door after all the horses have left. The border with Mexico is 2000 miles long, and much of it is only navigable by foot or horseback. To completely secure the border would cost billions, not to mention, add thousands more to the Fed payroll. Not to mention, border security alone does nothing to effect the ~11 million undocumented workers already here.

Oakland, I'm not saying we should base enforcement of the law based on benefits, but rather we should base our laws themselves on what benefits the country most. You can theorize that states like Alabama and Georgia will benefit from their draconian immigration laws, but returns to date have been the opposite. From this AJC article last September:

Henry Williams grows peaches on about 100 acres just north of Clanton and sells them to roadside stands and outdoor markets in Alabama, Georgia and other states. Williams said 15 of his Hispanic laborers fled after Alabama enacted its immigration law last year. So he started participating in a federal guest worker program. He said that program has increased his labor costs — the biggest share of his budget — by a third since it requires him to pay for much of those foreign workers’ expenses, including their transportation and lodging. Because his costs went up, he raised the prices for his peaches by about 5 percent this year.

Williams predicted some of his friends will shutter their farms. “Most people on my scale are not going to fool with it,” he said. "They are just going to give up. … A lot of them already have."

Addy wrote a sobering report in January that estimated what would happen to the state’s economy if Alabama’s immigration law drives out between 40,000 and 80,000 illegal immigrants earning between $15,000 and $35,000 annually. The results: a loss of up to about 140,000 direct and indirect jobs and $5.8 billion in earnings, $10.8 billion in Alabama’s gross domestic product, and more than $300 million in income and sales tax revenue.

So far, you have a loss of nearly $11 billion in Alabama GDP, a loss of $300 million in tax revenue, and a raise in prices of 5% for those who instead of using imported labor from Mexico, pay to use imported labor from elsewhere! Again, whom does the current Alabama law benefit?

Not to mention, the article also talks about selective enforcement. It is expensive for local police to investigate immigration status, and every police force engages in selective enforcement in order to keep costs and priorities in line. For example, cops don't stop everyone they see J-walking or going 5 miles over the speed limit, because if they did, that would take up almost all of their time and money, which is better spent going after more serious criminals. Selective enforcement of the immigration law is already happening in Alabama, and police forces following the law to the letter are complaining about the amount of resources they now have to allocate to the law to the point where the police forces are, understandably, pulling back. Again I ask, what's the benefit of spending hours investigating the legal standing of a fruit picker stopped for a minor traffic violation, then forcing the farmer to pay to have said worker replaced?

Our immigration laws are arcane and stupid. They need to be reformed. We have an appetite for cheap labor and our closest neighbors to the south just happens to have an over-abundance of supply. Simply put, we should stop putting up barriers between supply and demand, and if, as proven in Alabama and Georgia, our own citizenry aren't going to do the jobs migrants do, then let's import the cheapest possible. No reason to pay thousands to import African workers when Mexican workers will pay for themselves to get to the jobs. There is also no reason why those here should get to come here for free. Make those coming here to work pay for a guest worker visa, and make those already here pay for the same visa plus a fine for breaking our laws. And with billions being sent back to Mexico yearly, there is plenty of money working migrants can use to pay for such things? And migrants who are here and have a criminal history, commit a serious crime here, or can't afford to pay for their visa and/or fine? Send them back.

Last but not least, use some of the monies collected from visas/fines to increase border security. Also set up legal guest worker check points in major border towns like San Diego, Nogales, El Paso, etc., where migrants can come in, submit for a background check, then pay for their visa (or set up payment plan) if they pass. This would end a lot of illegal immigrant traffic because the majority entering the country crossing the open desert would instead, cross from major cities. And those left to cross the open desert? They would be those who couldn't pass a background check or coming here for other nefarious purposes (drug runnners). And if we kept the same amount of Border Patrol agents and removed a huge portion of the illegal border crosser population (by allowing them legal entry), our enforcement would too increase exponentially.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Talk about closing the barn door after all the horses have left. The border with Mexico is 2000 miles long, and much of it is only navigable by foot or horseback. To completely secure the border would cost billions, not to mention, add thousands more to the Fed payroll. Not to mention, border security alone does nothing to effect the ~11 million undocumented workers already here.

Oakland, I'm not saying we should base enforcement of the law based on benefits, but rather we should base our laws themselves on what benefits the country most. You can theorize that states like Alabama and Georgia will benefit from their draconian immigration laws, but returns to date have been the opposite. From this AJC article last September:



So far, you have a loss of nearly $11 billion in Alabama GDP, a loss of $300 million in tax revenue, and a raise in prices of 5% for those who instead of using imported labor from Mexico, pay to use imported labor from elsewhere! Again, whom does the current Alabama law benefit?

Not to mention, the article also talks about selective enforcement. It is expensive for local police to investigate immigration status, and every police force engages in selective enforcement in order to keep costs and priorities in line. For example, cops don't stop everyone they see J-walking or going 5 miles over the speed limit, because if they did, that would take up almost all of their time and money, which is better spent going after more serious criminals. Selective enforcement of the immigration law is already happening in Alabama, and police forces following the law to the letter are complaining about the amount of resources they now have to allocate to the law to the point where the police forces are, understandably, pulling back. Again I ask, what's the benefit of spending hours investigating the legal standing of a fruit picker stopped for a minor traffic violation, then forcing the farmer to pay to have said worker replaced?

Our immigration laws are arcane and stupid. They need to be reformed. We have an appetite for cheap labor and our closest neighbors to the south just happens to have an over-abundance of supply. Simply put, we should stop putting up barriers between supply and demand, and if, as proven in Alabama and Georgia, our own citizenry aren't going to do the jobs migrants do, then let's import the cheapest possible. No reason to pay thousands to import African workers when Mexican workers will pay for themselves to get to the jobs. There is also no reason why those here should get to come here for free. Make those coming here to work pay for a guest worker visa, and make those already here pay for the same visa plus a fine for breaking our laws. And with billions being sent back to Mexico yearly, there is plenty of money working migrants can use to pay for such things? And migrants who are here and have a criminal history, commit a serious crime here, or can't afford to pay for their visa and/or fine? Send them back.

Last but not least, use some of the monies collected from visas/fines to increase border security. Also set up legal guest worker check points in major border towns like San Diego, Nogales, El Paso, etc., where migrants can come in, submit for a background check, then pay for their visa (or set up payment plan) if they pass. This would end a lot of illegal immigrant traffic because the majority entering the country crossing the open desert would instead, cross from major cities. And those left to cross the open desert? They would be those who couldn't pass a background check or coming here for other nefarious purposes (drug runnners). And if we kept the same amount of Border Patrol agents and removed a huge portion of the illegal border crosser population (by allowing them legal entry), our enforcement would too increase exponentially.

You're filled with excuses on why we shouldn't do the right thing. So now we have a perpetual revolving door that goes something like this: illegals--------->amnesty--------->illegals--------->amnesty--------->illegals
At what point does it stop? They are sucking our resources dry. Enforcement of the borders can easily be justified with the resources the use in this country.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You're filled with excuses on why we shouldn't do the right thing. So now we have a perpetual revolving door that goes something like this: illegals--------->amnesty--------->illegals--------->amnesty--------->illegals
At what point does it stop? They are sucking our resources dry. Enforcement of the borders can easily be justified with the resources the use in this country.

How about Guest worker program----------->citizen path or go home. Our current policies are the ones that have created the revolving door. And as shown by Alabama and Georgia, increased enforcement of existing laws leads to lower productivity/GDP and higher prices as instead of getting super cheap labor for Mexico, we get moderately low-cost labor from Africa.

Please elaborate how increasing the cost of border enforcement exponentially that would dry up the cheap labor from Mexico be beneficial to anyone? If we did this and it followed the Alabama results (as would be expected), we would seriously cut our GDP by billions, while raising the cost of things like foodstuffs 5%, thus causing inflation on all other products. To me, it's total insanity that your solution to the immigration problem is spending more government money on enforcement that will lead to less GDP production and higher prices across the board. Let's say that again. Your solution is more government spending, lower GDP production, and significant inflation. My solution? Increase tax revenue by taxing immigrants (read non-citizens), no loss in GDP, and no increase in inflation. Why it's not obvious to everyone is incredibly perplexing to me.

So I ask again. Whom does it benefit to go the route of Alabama and Georgia?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

How about Guest worker program----------->citizen path or go home. Our current policies are the ones that have created the revolving door. And as shown by Alabama and Georgia, increased enforcement of existing laws leads to lower productivity/GDP and higher prices as instead of getting super cheap labor for Mexico, we get moderately low-cost labor from Africa.

Please elaborate how increasing the cost of border enforcement exponentially that would dry up the cheap labor from Mexico be beneficial to anyone? If we did this and it followed the Alabama results (as would be expected), we would seriously cut our GDP by billions, while raising the cost of things like foodstuffs 5%, thus causing inflation on all other products. To me, it's total insanity that your solution to the immigration problem is spending more government money on enforcement that will lead to less GDP production and higher prices across the board. Let's say that again. Your solution is more government spending, lower GDP production, and significant inflation. My solution? Increase tax revenue by taxing immigrants (read non-citizens), no loss in GDP, and no increase in inflation. Why it's not obvious to everyone is incredibly perplexing to me.

So I ask again. Whom does it benefit to go the route of Alabama and Georgia?

Our unwillingness to secure the boarder has created this problem. Go to any emergency room any given night and let me know what you see. They also have access to early intervention among other programs that have a heavy cost. Total costs on the fed, state and local level is $100+ Billion.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I hope the victims of gun violence arent deers that Ted Nugent shot. That could get awkward.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Our unwillingness to secure the boarder has created this problem. Go to any emergency room any given night and let me know what you see. They also have access to early intervention among other programs that have a heavy cost. Total costs on the fed, state and local level is $100+ Billion.

And what is your solution? Invent a time machine, convince President Reagan not to grant amnesty, amend the Constitution to disallow anchor babies, then convince the 1980's Congress to spend billions on border security?

And yes, there are costs associated with illegal labor. But remember, Alabama has proven the benefits outweigh the costs. The GDP in Alabama alone due to increased enforcement is $11 billion. Assume that Alabama represents 1/50 of the GDP, and if we do something similar on a national level, that's $550 billion in GDP lost. (Of course Alabama is a smaller than average state and represents less than 2% national GDP). Again, what kind of sane policy is attempting to save $100+ billion that costs more than a potential $1 trillion?

It's time to stop lamenting the fact the barn door has been open for generations, stop throwing more money on simple enforcement that is pound foolish, and create a comprehensive guest worker program. It is the most rational and most fiscally sound policy.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by gatornana

The Obama administration isn't deporting them, permitting them to stay. It may be splitting hairs but they're currently here legally.

Obama cannot change congressional laws. We all know he thinks that he can, but he can't. If a state fought Obama and took a case concerning illegals to the SCOTUS Obama would lose.