RE: Immigration raids

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Aww.... looks like someone is getting a bit sensitive. A sensitive troll? whodda thunk it...

Again, current law would work if it was enforced but since it isn't, many push for even stricter law to bring things in line with where they should be if original law was enforced. That doesn't make one a xenophobe. Only a liberal trolls like you want to suggest such things.

Huh? I was just making fun of you for your hilarious attempt to avoid being wrong in the past, and how it is evidence for how worthless it is to actually try and debate something with you. (If someone can't admit they didn't know something as inconsequential as a word, how are they going to admit to something meaningful? Not to mention you seem to be unaware of the definition of what a troll is.)

I find the current US statutory posture towards immigration to be xenophobic, therefore wanting that level of statutory restriction to remain or to get harsher I would view as even more xenophobic.

This isn't rocket science.

Exactly, it's worthless to try to have a debate with you - especially on this topic since it's clear you are stuck in your little bubble world and won't even dare look to look at the reality of the situation.

I love how the midwesterner tries to tell the guy living 15 minutes from San Ysidro that he doesn't know the reality of immigration.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Aww.... looks like someone is getting a bit sensitive. A sensitive troll? whodda thunk it...

Again, current law would work if it was enforced but since it isn't, many push for even stricter law to bring things in line with where they should be if original law was enforced. That doesn't make one a xenophobe. Only a liberal trolls like you want to suggest such things.

Huh? I was just making fun of you for your hilarious attempt to avoid being wrong in the past, and how it is evidence for how worthless it is to actually try and debate something with you. (If someone can't admit they didn't know something as inconsequential as a word, how are they going to admit to something meaningful? Not to mention you seem to be unaware of the definition of what a troll is.)

I find the current US statutory posture towards immigration to be xenophobic, therefore wanting that level of statutory restriction to remain or to get harsher I would view as even more xenophobic.

This isn't rocket science.

Exactly, it's worthless to try to have a debate with you - especially on this topic since it's clear you are stuck in your little bubble world and won't even dare look to look at the reality of the situation.

I love how the midwesterner tries to tell the guy living 15 minutes from San Ysidro that he doesn't know the reality of immigration.

Right, because obviously I have no exposure to the realities of immigration... :roll: Try again junior.
Again, try looking outside your little bubble. Just because someone doesn't agree with your narrow view doesn't mean they are xenophobes. Using such emotional rhetoric and narrow view shows just how uninformed - OR - out of touch with reality you are.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

You have absolutely ZERO evidence of your claim. Youre grasping at straws.

Every once in awhile we (as posters) get posting in a thread and get way over our head. Ive done it, we've all done it. This is one of those times for you. You have absoluetly no knowledge of how immigration works, therefore all you can do is say it needs reform. Fine. Its said. But you keep burying yourself. Dont get me wrong man. Youre one of the few I sometimes disagree with that I can converse with on subjects we disagree on. But its time to bow out.

What are you talking about? This stuff isn't rocket science, and since I originally posted I've read quite a bit on statutory immigration reform. I feel completely comfortable debating you and anyone else on the subject. EDIT: Oh, and how can you say I have no evidence for my claim? We have about 30,000 H2 visa workers in the US annually and how many illegal immigrants? Yeap, they aren't being used.

We have a visa system that people can use to bring workers into the country legally. We have lots of people coming into the country illegally for the sole purpose of working. We have employers who want workers, and employees who want to work, along with a method for matching those two up. In a huge percentage of cases it is not being used.

So what's the reason for this? I'm just going to take a wild guess and say it's because it's a lot easier and cheaper to hire illegal workers. The government can do a lot to bring the costs of legal and illegal workers better in line. They can streamline the application process, they can decrease regulatory requirements on compensation, housing, etc. They can levy greater penalties on employers for violating the law, and they can dedicate more resources to better enforcing it. I'm not against enforcing the law, I'm just telling you guys that our immigration law right now is an obvious failure.

OK clearly you are focused on work visas, so I wont address anything else. Here is an outline of the H2 process:

Who is Eligible?
An international beneficiary who is offered a job by a U.S. employer may enter the U.S. for a temporary time of specified duration to fill the offered position. The employment must be a one-time need based upon low U.S. worker availability, seasonal, or cyclical needs.

Petitioner must prove to the satisfaction of the United States Consul official that:

1. U.S. COMPANY IS OFFERING EMPLOMENT - The employer must be offering a position that is temporary and based on unusual need;
2. PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT MUST HAVE SPECIFIC ENDING DATE - The offered position must be an isolated occurrence that has a specific foreseen ending date. The position may not be a consistently vacant position, but the need for the Beneficiary must arise due to seasonal, cyclical, or tight labor market circumstances;
3. TEMPORARY LABOR CERTIFICATION - The Petitioner must obtain a temporary labor certification certifying that no U.S workers will be adversely affected by the employment of the international Beneficiary. Further, the Beneficiary must be paid a wage equal to or exceeding a minimum prevailing wage for workers in the same position set by the state where Beneficiary shall work.

How to Apply
The Petitioner must first obtain a Temporary Labor Certification (TLC) from the USDOL. Upon receiving the TLC, the Petitioner may forward the petition with attached TLC to the INS Regional Service Center with jurisdiction over the Beneficiary's proposed place of employment.

Documentation Requirements
1. Approved temporary Labor Certification from U.S. Department of Labor certifying that no U.S. workers are available to fill the offered position, and that no U.S. workers will be adversely affected by the employment of the international Beneficiary;
2. Proof that job offered is for a short specified duration with date certain for ending date;
3. Proof that beneficiary has the job qualifications necessary to fill the offered position, that is, training, education, or letters of reference;
4. Job offer letter describing position, temporary need of employee, and terms and conditions of employment.

Duration
Once approved, an H-2B Visa is good for the length of the TLC for a maximum of one year. Renewals for an H-2B visa may be extended for a maximum of three years in one-year increments. Upon reaching completion of the maximum stay a Beneficiary must depart the U.S. for at least six months.

Processing Times
Depending on the backlog at the INS Service center which receives your petition, the petition should take between 30 and 60 days to approve or deny.



Lets start with this. What part of the above outline would you change?

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Socio
It doesn?t not matter how hard working they are, they take jobs from hard working Americans, depress wages and benefits and cause a two prong increase on our welfare system.
We do not have a shortage of low wage workers in this country, as seen in the OP as soon as they were removed; people who should have been doing those jobs got them and there was an increase in wages to boot!

?This will not happen, with a Democrat president and controlled congress as amnesty is inevitable.?

However the very best thing we could do for the country is seal the border and boot everyone here illegally.

After that is done we need to control the flow of low wage immigrant workers, the importation of low wage workers should only and always be the last resort.

We should only let in who should be let in and only for as long as we need them. Put in place strict immigration policies to track temporary/seasonal workers we let in. Too many get petitioned and accepted for farm work and never show up, they instead go take unauthorized jobs, like construction, warehousing etc. and go off the grid. As a deterrent if they violate their visa they should be deported with a life time no re-entry ban on their record.

Let all the companies that were dependant on illegal workers die off and the ones that remain that can pay a competitive wage hire from within before importing workers. It would be culling the heard so to speak; If you?re in business and cannot afford to pay a living wage and keep it profitable you probably have no business being in business.

This would put many US workers back to work, increase tax revenue and take a huge load off of welfare and other government services place on it by both the illegal?s and previously out of work Americans.

That would be the right thing to for the US, that would be real economic stimulus!

How is immigration of low wage workers any worse than the outsourcing of, well, everything to China and India?

We can either import workers or export jobs. The free market will find the lowest wages regardless of where they are.

So what you are saying is we are damned if we do and damned if we don?t, the American way of life that our forefathers worked so hard for, sweated for and died for is getting destroyed no matter what.

We kick them out, businesses will leave, jobs will go, the middle class will become poor leaving only a two class system; a hand full of rich and 100?s of millions of poor.

We don?t stop the rampant immigration and remove illegals the jobs will stay, job markets will continue to become so saturated that wages will be driven down to the point where middle class will become low wage earning poor leaving only a two class system; a hand full of rich and 100?s of millions of poor.

That ultimately our generosity to less fortunate nations and people of these nations, allowing them to learn at our schools, share in our technology, and immigrate in to our country by the 10?s of millions actually paved the way for them to drag us down to third world contention and destroy America as we know it?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Aww.... looks like someone is getting a bit sensitive. A sensitive troll? whodda thunk it...

Again, current law would work if it was enforced but since it isn't, many push for even stricter law to bring things in line with where they should be if original law was enforced. That doesn't make one a xenophobe. Only a liberal trolls like you want to suggest such things.

Huh? I was just making fun of you for your hilarious attempt to avoid being wrong in the past, and how it is evidence for how worthless it is to actually try and debate something with you. (If someone can't admit they didn't know something as inconsequential as a word, how are they going to admit to something meaningful? Not to mention you seem to be unaware of the definition of what a troll is.)

I find the current US statutory posture towards immigration to be xenophobic, therefore wanting that level of statutory restriction to remain or to get harsher I would view as even more xenophobic.

This isn't rocket science.

No it is Common Sense and smarty pants know-it-alls are usually devoid of that.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Socio
It doesn?t not matter how hard working they are, they take jobs from hard working Americans, depress wages and benefits and cause a two prong increase on our welfare system.
We do not have a shortage of low wage workers in this country, as seen in the OP as soon as they were removed; people who should have been doing those jobs got them and there was an increase in wages to boot!

?This will not happen, with a Democrat president and controlled congress as amnesty is inevitable.?

However the very best thing we could do for the country is seal the border and boot everyone here illegally.

After that is done we need to control the flow of low wage immigrant workers, the importation of low wage workers should only and always be the last resort.

We should only let in who should be let in and only for as long as we need them. Put in place strict immigration policies to track temporary/seasonal workers we let in. Too many get petitioned and accepted for farm work and never show up, they instead go take unauthorized jobs, like construction, warehousing etc. and go off the grid. As a deterrent if they violate their visa they should be deported with a life time no re-entry ban on their record.

Let all the companies that were dependant on illegal workers die off and the ones that remain that can pay a competitive wage hire from within before importing workers. It would be culling the heard so to speak; If you?re in business and cannot afford to pay a living wage and keep it profitable you probably have no business being in business.

This would put many US workers back to work, increase tax revenue and take a huge load off of welfare and other government services place on it by both the illegal?s and previously out of work Americans.

That would be the right thing to for the US, that would be real economic stimulus!

How is immigration of low wage workers any worse than the outsourcing of, well, everything to China and India?

We can either import workers or export jobs. The free market will find the lowest wages regardless of where they are.

So what you are saying is we are damned if we do and damned if we don?t, the American way of life that our forefathers worked so hard for, sweated for and died for is getting destroyed no matter what.

We kick them out, businesses will leave, jobs will go, the middle class will become poor leaving only a two class system; a hand full of rich and 100?s of millions of poor.

We don?t stop the rampant immigration and remove illegals the jobs will stay, job markets will continue to become so saturated that wages will be driven down to the point where middle class will become low wage earning poor leaving only a two class system; a hand full of rich and 100?s of millions of poor.

That ultimately our generosity to less fortunate nations and people of these nations, allowing them to learn at our schools, share in our technology, and immigrate in to our country by the 10?s of millions actually paved the way for them to drag us down to third world contention and destroy America as we know it?

Well taxing talented people from lousy companies isn't helping that is for sure. Anyhow this is a good post we are kinda screwed either way but we need to close the flood gates keep our illegal and we're gonna be just fine.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

You have absolutely ZERO evidence of your claim. Youre grasping at straws.

Every once in awhile we (as posters) get posting in a thread and get way over our head. Ive done it, we've all done it. This is one of those times for you. You have absoluetly no knowledge of how immigration works, therefore all you can do is say it needs reform. Fine. Its said. But you keep burying yourself. Dont get me wrong man. Youre one of the few I sometimes disagree with that I can converse with on subjects we disagree on. But its time to bow out.

What are you talking about? This stuff isn't rocket science, and since I originally posted I've read quite a bit on statutory immigration reform. I feel completely comfortable debating you and anyone else on the subject. EDIT: Oh, and how can you say I have no evidence for my claim? We have about 30,000 H2 visa workers in the US annually and how many illegal immigrants? Yeap, they aren't being used.

We have a visa system that people can use to bring workers into the country legally. We have lots of people coming into the country illegally for the sole purpose of working. We have employers who want workers, and employees who want to work, along with a method for matching those two up. In a huge percentage of cases it is not being used.

So what's the reason for this? I'm just going to take a wild guess and say it's because it's a lot easier and cheaper to hire illegal workers. The government can do a lot to bring the costs of legal and illegal workers better in line. They can streamline the application process, they can decrease regulatory requirements on compensation, housing, etc. They can levy greater penalties on employers for violating the law, and they can dedicate more resources to better enforcing it. I'm not against enforcing the law, I'm just telling you guys that our immigration law right now is an obvious failure.

OK clearly you are focused on work visas, so I wont address anything else. Here is an outline of the H2 process:

Who is Eligible?
An international beneficiary who is offered a job by a U.S. employer may enter the U.S. for a temporary time of specified duration to fill the offered position. The employment must be a one-time need based upon low U.S. worker availability, seasonal, or cyclical needs.

Petitioner must prove to the satisfaction of the United States Consul official that:

1. U.S. COMPANY IS OFFERING EMPLOMENT - The employer must be offering a position that is temporary and based on unusual need;
2. PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT MUST HAVE SPECIFIC ENDING DATE - The offered position must be an isolated occurrence that has a specific foreseen ending date. The position may not be a consistently vacant position, but the need for the Beneficiary must arise due to seasonal, cyclical, or tight labor market circumstances;
3. TEMPORARY LABOR CERTIFICATION - The Petitioner must obtain a temporary labor certification certifying that no U.S workers will be adversely affected by the employment of the international Beneficiary. Further, the Beneficiary must be paid a wage equal to or exceeding a minimum prevailing wage for workers in the same position set by the state where Beneficiary shall work.

How to Apply
The Petitioner must first obtain a Temporary Labor Certification (TLC) from the USDOL. Upon receiving the TLC, the Petitioner may forward the petition with attached TLC to the INS Regional Service Center with jurisdiction over the Beneficiary's proposed place of employment.

Documentation Requirements
1. Approved temporary Labor Certification from U.S. Department of Labor certifying that no U.S. workers are available to fill the offered position, and that no U.S. workers will be adversely affected by the employment of the international Beneficiary;
2. Proof that job offered is for a short specified duration with date certain for ending date;
3. Proof that beneficiary has the job qualifications necessary to fill the offered position, that is, training, education, or letters of reference;
4. Job offer letter describing position, temporary need of employee, and terms and conditions of employment.

Duration
Once approved, an H-2B Visa is good for the length of the TLC for a maximum of one year. Renewals for an H-2B visa may be extended for a maximum of three years in one-year increments. Upon reaching completion of the maximum stay a Beneficiary must depart the U.S. for at least six months.

Processing Times
Depending on the backlog at the INS Service center which receives your petition, the petition should take between 30 and 60 days to approve or deny.

Lets start with this. What part of the above outline would you change?

How about the fact that they are temporary and based upon unusual need. The fact that they need to obtain a certification that no US citizen will be adversely affected, the qualification hoops they have to jump through, the processing time, etc... etc. This is exactly what I'm talking about for how US immigration law is so shitty. There's a reason why there were about 30,000 H2 visa workers in the US last year, and more than 300,000 illegal workers in agriculture the same year.

Our system doesn't need to be tweaked, it needs to be torn down and restarted without the nativist influences that have unreasonably restricted legal immigration.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Socio
It doesn?t not matter how hard working they are, they take jobs from hard working Americans, depress wages and benefits and cause a two prong increase on our welfare system.
We do not have a shortage of low wage workers in this country, as seen in the OP as soon as they were removed; people who should have been doing those jobs got them and there was an increase in wages to boot!

?This will not happen, with a Democrat president and controlled congress as amnesty is inevitable.?

However the very best thing we could do for the country is seal the border and boot everyone here illegally.

After that is done we need to control the flow of low wage immigrant workers, the importation of low wage workers should only and always be the last resort.

We should only let in who should be let in and only for as long as we need them. Put in place strict immigration policies to track temporary/seasonal workers we let in. Too many get petitioned and accepted for farm work and never show up, they instead go take unauthorized jobs, like construction, warehousing etc. and go off the grid. As a deterrent if they violate their visa they should be deported with a life time no re-entry ban on their record.

Let all the companies that were dependant on illegal workers die off and the ones that remain that can pay a competitive wage hire from within before importing workers. It would be culling the heard so to speak; If you?re in business and cannot afford to pay a living wage and keep it profitable you probably have no business being in business.

This would put many US workers back to work, increase tax revenue and take a huge load off of welfare and other government services place on it by both the illegal?s and previously out of work Americans.

That would be the right thing to for the US, that would be real economic stimulus!

How is immigration of low wage workers any worse than the outsourcing of, well, everything to China and India?

We can either import workers or export jobs. The free market will find the lowest wages regardless of where they are.

So what you are saying is we are damned if we do and damned if we don?t, the American way of life that our forefathers worked so hard for, sweated for and died for is getting destroyed no matter what.

We kick them out, businesses will leave, jobs will go, the middle class will become poor leaving only a two class system; a hand full of rich and 100?s of millions of poor.

We don?t stop the rampant immigration and remove illegals the jobs will stay, job markets will continue to become so saturated that wages will be driven down to the point where middle class will become low wage earning poor leaving only a two class system; a hand full of rich and 100?s of millions of poor.

That ultimately our generosity to less fortunate nations and people of these nations, allowing them to learn at our schools, share in our technology, and immigrate in to our country by the 10?s of millions actually paved the way for them to drag us down to third world contention and destroy America as we know it?

Well taxing talented people from lousy companies isn't helping that is for sure. Anyhow this is a good post we are kinda screwed either way but we need to close the flood gates keep our illegal and we're gonna be just fine.

The US, Canada, and Europe do have one consolation;

All those corporate greed mongers outsourcing jobs and hiring illegal?s, driving down wages and benefits for their own profit. All the blood sucking countries whom are stupid enough to have the majority of their economies based on Western consumption. Who are taking jobs away hand over fist, and depressing world wages, along with all the ignorant politicians allowing it are cutting their own throats.

Because when we go down they will ALL be pulled down right along with us!

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Socio
It doesn?t not matter how hard working they are, they take jobs from hard working Americans, depress wages and benefits and cause a two prong increase on our welfare system.
We do not have a shortage of low wage workers in this country, as seen in the OP as soon as they were removed; people who should have been doing those jobs got them and there was an increase in wages to boot!

?This will not happen, with a Democrat president and controlled congress as amnesty is inevitable.?

However the very best thing we could do for the country is seal the border and boot everyone here illegally.

After that is done we need to control the flow of low wage immigrant workers, the importation of low wage workers should only and always be the last resort.

We should only let in who should be let in and only for as long as we need them. Put in place strict immigration policies to track temporary/seasonal workers we let in. Too many get petitioned and accepted for farm work and never show up, they instead go take unauthorized jobs, like construction, warehousing etc. and go off the grid. As a deterrent if they violate their visa they should be deported with a life time no re-entry ban on their record.

Let all the companies that were dependant on illegal workers die off and the ones that remain that can pay a competitive wage hire from within before importing workers. It would be culling the heard so to speak; If you?re in business and cannot afford to pay a living wage and keep it profitable you probably have no business being in business.

This would put many US workers back to work, increase tax revenue and take a huge load off of welfare and other government services place on it by both the illegal?s and previously out of work Americans.

That would be the right thing to for the US, that would be real economic stimulus!

How is immigration of low wage workers any worse than the outsourcing of, well, everything to China and India?

We can either import workers or export jobs. The free market will find the lowest wages regardless of where they are.

It's different in that the illegals are doing jobs that either can't or can't easily be outsourced.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Aww.... looks like someone is getting a bit sensitive. A sensitive troll? whodda thunk it...

Again, current law would work if it was enforced but since it isn't, many push for even stricter law to bring things in line with where they should be if original law was enforced. That doesn't make one a xenophobe. Only a liberal trolls like you want to suggest such things.

Huh? I was just making fun of you for your hilarious attempt to avoid being wrong in the past, and how it is evidence for how worthless it is to actually try and debate something with you. (If someone can't admit they didn't know something as inconsequential as a word, how are they going to admit to something meaningful? Not to mention you seem to be unaware of the definition of what a troll is.)

I find the current US statutory posture towards immigration to be xenophobic, therefore wanting that level of statutory restriction to remain or to get harsher I would view as even more xenophobic.

This isn't rocket science.

Exactly, it's worthless to try to have a debate with you - especially on this topic since it's clear you are stuck in your little bubble world and won't even dare look to look at the reality of the situation.

I love how the midwesterner tries to tell the guy living 15 minutes from San Ysidro that he doesn't know the reality of immigration.

I can't believe your pulling the Sarah Palin "I can see Russia from here" BS again.

Your location doesn't make you any more knowledgable then anyone else, but keep on clinging to your little strawman.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

I can't believe your pulling the Sarah Palin "I can see Russia from here" BS again.

Your location doesn't make you any more knowledgable then anyone else, but keep on clinging to your little strawman.

He said that I live in a 'bubble', implying I am shielded from the reality of illegal immigration while he lives in the midwest and I live in one of the areas most heavily affected by it.

My location doesn't make me right, but it does make the idea that I haven't experienced the reality of immigration pretty silly. Oh, and you need to look up the definition of 'straw man'. I feel like this forum needs a sticky on the meaning of that phrase. A 'straw man' is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easy to defeat.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

How about the fact that they are temporary and based upon unusual need. The fact that they need to obtain a certification that no US citizen will be adversely affected, the qualification hoops they have to jump through, the processing time, etc... etc. This is exactly what I'm talking about for how US immigration law is so shitty. There's a reason why there were about 30,000 H2 visa workers in the US last year, and more than 300,000 illegal workers in agriculture the same year.

Our system doesn't need to be tweaked, it needs to be torn down and restarted without the nativist influences that have unreasonably restricted legal immigration.

We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. I realize you probably just started reading etc about this, but perhaps in another thread, on another day, we can discuss specifics. you havent offered anything of substance as far as what you would reform or change, and why. I feel the onus of fixing illegal immigration needs to fal on companies that hire. 3 strikes, your business license is pulled. That will address the problem AT THE ROOT. The hoops we have in place now are reasonable, although sometimes slow (all types of immigration). But to eliminate the checks and balances we have in place for those who already have broken the law not only rewards bad behavior, but is a risk to our security.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Aww.... looks like someone is getting a bit sensitive. A sensitive troll? whodda thunk it...

Again, current law would work if it was enforced but since it isn't, many push for even stricter law to bring things in line with where they should be if original law was enforced. That doesn't make one a xenophobe. Only a liberal trolls like you want to suggest such things.

Huh? I was just making fun of you for your hilarious attempt to avoid being wrong in the past, and how it is evidence for how worthless it is to actually try and debate something with you. (If someone can't admit they didn't know something as inconsequential as a word, how are they going to admit to something meaningful? Not to mention you seem to be unaware of the definition of what a troll is.)

I find the current US statutory posture towards immigration to be xenophobic, therefore wanting that level of statutory restriction to remain or to get harsher I would view as even more xenophobic.

This isn't rocket science.

Exactly, it's worthless to try to have a debate with you - especially on this topic since it's clear you are stuck in your little bubble world and won't even dare look to look at the reality of the situation.

I love how the midwesterner tries to tell the guy living 15 minutes from San Ysidro that he doesn't know the reality of immigration.

I can't believe your pulling the Sarah Palin "I can see Russia from here" BS again.

Your location doesn't make you any more knowledgable then anyone else, but keep on clinging to your little strawman.

I wouldnt call eskimo's comments strawman...I think naive is a better word. He isnt a stupid guy, its just he really doesnt understand immigration.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

I can't believe your pulling the Sarah Palin "I can see Russia from here" BS again.

Your location doesn't make you any more knowledgable then anyone else, but keep on clinging to your little strawman.

He said that I live in a 'bubble', implying I am shielded from the reality of illegal immigration while he lives in the midwest and I live in one of the areas most heavily affected by it.

My location doesn't make me right, but it does make the idea that I haven't experienced the reality of immigration pretty silly. Oh, and you need to look up the definition of 'straw man'. I feel like this forum needs a sticky on the meaning of that phrase. A 'straw man' is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easy to defeat.

He said your are evasive, and you are.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I wouldnt call eskimo's comments strawman...I think naive is a better word. He isnt a stupid guy, its just he really doesnt understand immigration.

Yeah, strawman probably wast the right term and I knew that when I wrote it, I was just too lazy to look up what the proper term was.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

I can't believe your pulling the Sarah Palin "I can see Russia from here" BS again.

Your location doesn't make you any more knowledgable then anyone else, but keep on clinging to your little strawman.

I wouldnt call eskimo's comments strawman...I think naive is a better word. He isnt a stupid guy, its just he really doesnt understand immigration.

If you want to talk about immigration reform I'm all for it, but you honestly think stomping around yanking business licenses would fix things? Really? I'm sorry, but talk about naive. Increasing enforcement without making the path for immigration easier for those who want to come here and work legally is just spitting into the wind. There is a large demand for immigrant labor in the US currently, one our immigration system is (by design) unable to fulfill.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

He said that I live in a 'bubble', implying I am shielded from the reality of illegal immigration while he lives in the midwest and I live in one of the areas most heavily affected by it.

My location doesn't make me right, but it does make the idea that I haven't experienced the reality of immigration pretty silly. Oh, and you need to look up the definition of 'straw man'. I feel like this forum needs a sticky on the meaning of that phrase. A 'straw man' is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easy to defeat.

He said your are evasive, and you are.

Haha, feel free to tell me what you think I am evading. You're a nativist and so I'm sure you don't like my position, but you're going to have to do better than this.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

I can't believe your pulling the Sarah Palin "I can see Russia from here" BS again.

Your location doesn't make you any more knowledgable then anyone else, but keep on clinging to your little strawman.

I wouldnt call eskimo's comments strawman...I think naive is a better word. He isnt a stupid guy, its just he really doesnt understand immigration.

If you want to talk about immigration reform I'm all for it, but you honestly think stomping around yanking business licenses would fix things? Really? I'm sorry, but talk about naive. Increasing enforcement without making the path for immigration easier for those who want to come here and work legally is just spitting into the wind. There is a large demand for immigrant labor in the US currently, one our immigration system is (by design) unable to fulfill.

Like I said, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

I can't believe your pulling the Sarah Palin "I can see Russia from here" BS again.

Your location doesn't make you any more knowledgable then anyone else, but keep on clinging to your little strawman.

I wouldnt call eskimo's comments strawman...I think naive is a better word. He isnt a stupid guy, its just he really doesnt understand immigration.

If you want to talk about immigration reform I'm all for it, but you honestly think stomping around yanking business licenses would fix things? Really? I'm sorry, but talk about naive. Increasing enforcement without making the path for immigration easier for those who want to come here and work legally is just spitting into the wind. There is a large demand for immigrant labor in the US currently, one our immigration system is (by design) unable to fulfill.

Making the path for immigration easier while more ?restrictive? for those who want to come here and work legally is what needs to be done. There is a demand for immigrant labor and it is primarily in the agriculture industry. The reason these jobs go unfulfilled is not by design it is because too many immigrants that have been allowed entry to do those jobs instead flee to do higher paying jobs they are not supposed to be doing.

We need a system that allows us to track and permanently expel those that violate their Visas by committing such acts. Only when we can control both the flow and those we allow entry can we have secure borders.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

He said that I live in a 'bubble', implying I am shielded from the reality of illegal immigration while he lives in the midwest and I live in one of the areas most heavily affected by it.

My location doesn't make me right, but it does make the idea that I haven't experienced the reality of immigration pretty silly. Oh, and you need to look up the definition of 'straw man'. I feel like this forum needs a sticky on the meaning of that phrase. A 'straw man' is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easy to defeat.

He said your are evasive, and you are.

Haha, feel free to tell me what you think I am evading. You're a nativist and so I'm sure you don't like my position, but you're going to have to do better than this.

OK answer this from back on page one:

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

US immigration law has been used as a vehicle to enforce xenophobia for a long, long time.

Immigration law allows us to control who can and can't immigrate into our country. I fail to see how anybody (but a fool) can think that allowing anybody and everybody in our country is a good idea? We need to control our boarders, it's just that plain and simple.

Who thinks that allowing anybody and everybody into our country is a good idea?

If we give the current 20 MILLION illegals amnesty and don't seal our border, WTF do YOU think will happen??

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

He said that I live in a 'bubble', implying I am shielded from the reality of illegal immigration while he lives in the midwest and I live in one of the areas most heavily affected by it.

My location doesn't make me right, but it does make the idea that I haven't experienced the reality of immigration pretty silly. Oh, and you need to look up the definition of 'straw man'. I feel like this forum needs a sticky on the meaning of that phrase. A 'straw man' is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easy to defeat.

He said your are evasive, and you are.

Haha, feel free to tell me what you think I am evading. You're a nativist and so I'm sure you don't like my position, but you're going to have to do better than this.

OK answer this from back on page one:

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

US immigration law has been used as a vehicle to enforce xenophobia for a long, long time.

Immigration law allows us to control who can and can't immigrate into our country. I fail to see how anybody (but a fool) can think that allowing anybody and everybody in our country is a good idea? We need to control our boarders, it's just that plain and simple.

Who thinks that allowing anybody and everybody into our country is a good idea?

If we give the current 20 MILLION illegals amnesty and don't seal our border, WTF do YOU think will happen??

I already answered that. Your question is impossibly vague, as it would totally depend on how we did it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

He said that I live in a 'bubble', implying I am shielded from the reality of illegal immigration while he lives in the midwest and I live in one of the areas most heavily affected by it.

My location doesn't make me right, but it does make the idea that I haven't experienced the reality of immigration pretty silly. Oh, and you need to look up the definition of 'straw man'. I feel like this forum needs a sticky on the meaning of that phrase. A 'straw man' is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easy to defeat.

He said your are evasive, and you are.

Haha, feel free to tell me what you think I am evading. You're a nativist and so I'm sure you don't like my position, but you're going to have to do better than this.

OK answer this from back on page one:

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

US immigration law has been used as a vehicle to enforce xenophobia for a long, long time.

Immigration law allows us to control who can and can't immigrate into our country. I fail to see how anybody (but a fool) can think that allowing anybody and everybody in our country is a good idea? We need to control our boarders, it's just that plain and simple.

Who thinks that allowing anybody and everybody into our country is a good idea?

If we give the current 20 MILLION illegals amnesty and don't seal our border, WTF do YOU think will happen??

I already answered that. Your question is impossibly vague, as it would totally depend on how we did it.

LOL, like I said, you are evasive. Try checking out what happened last time we gave amnesty and didn't protect our border. Instead of talking about amnesty for 3 million now we have to deal with amnesty for 20 million.

Only an idiot, a fool, or a liar would try to evade what we all know would happen. Which one are you?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I already answered that. Your question is impossibly vague, as it would totally depend on how we did it.

LOL, like I said, you are evasive. Try checking out what happened last time we gave amnesty and didn't protect our border. Instead of talking about amnesty for 3 million now we have to deal with amnesty for 20 million.

Only an idiot, a fool, or a liar would try to evade what we all know would happen. Which one are you?

Yeah, either I'm evasive or you asked a dumb question. Gee, I wonder which it is.

You realize that the legislation passed in the 80's was more than "COME ON IN GUYS, YEE-HAWWWW!" right? They screwed it up because they kept immigration just as hard as it was before, but just legalized the people who were already here. Amnesty without comprehensive immigration reform is a waste of time, because more illegal people will just come in. Nobody is trying to pass an amnesty bill without comprehensive reform however, and there's a wide range of how we might do it. That's why when you ask 'what do you think will happen?', anyone with a brain would say 'i have no idea, it depends on how we do it'.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I already answered that. Your question is impossibly vague, as it would totally depend on how we did it.

LOL, like I said, you are evasive. Try checking out what happened last time we gave amnesty and didn't protect our border. Instead of talking about amnesty for 3 million now we have to deal with amnesty for 20 million.

Only an idiot, a fool, or a liar would try to evade what we all know would happen. Which one are you?

Yeah, either I'm evasive or you asked a dumb question. Gee, I wonder which it is.

You realize that the legislation passed in the 80's was more than "COME ON IN GUYS, YEE-HAWWWW!" right? They screwed it up because they kept immigration just as hard as it was before, but just legalized the people who were already here. Amnesty without comprehensive immigration reform is a waste of time, because more illegal people will just come in. Nobody is trying to pass an amnesty bill without comprehensive reform however, and there's a wide range of how we might do it. That's why when you ask 'what do you think will happen?', anyone with a brain would say 'i have no idea, it depends on how we do it'.

Playing ignorant seems to suit you.

Nothing is stopping illegals from coming across the border and if they feel there will be chance for amnesty that will only INCREASE the number of illegals sneaking in or overstaying their visas. It's not rocket science, you don't reward people for breaking the law unless you want more lawbreakers.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Your location doesn't make you any more knowledgable then anyone else, but keep on clinging to your little strawman.

Those of us that live on the front lines of the problem probably do interact/live/work and know these people their families and plight just a bit better then the midwestener that saw a brown dude in front of Home Depot one time and went home to shake his fist while watching CNN.
Not saying everyone does, but your statement is false.

The SP Russia thing was just plain dumb to compare, Russia and Alaska are NOT neighbors on a day to day living basis nor are they even the same community.