🚀 go-pugleaf

SteveR wrote:

> In article <3d84ddd3.7357709@news.ev1.net>, montep@email.com (Monte)
> wrote:
>
> > http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020915-492707.htm
> >
> > Will Texas be the next state in the chain?  California long known for
> > the birthplace of nutty ideas may be auger omens of the future in this
> > instance.  The mexican lobby, and the politically weird, er sensitive,
> > in their rush to embrace all things hispanic are trying to circumvent
> > some fundamental constitutional guarantees.
> >
> > If these jackasses prevail what you will wind up with is a country
> > with absolutely no protections for any of its citizens, because it
> > will be asked to embrace the planet.  A perhaps commendable goal, but
> > completely flawed in the way it is being accomplished.  How is it
> > possible to provide constituional guarantees, if at the same time you
> > must respect, even place in the forefront all the beliefs and
> > practices the immigrants bring with them, most of which are in direct
> > opposition to rule of law and democracy.
> >
> > Time to set the brakes on this drunken vehicle now.
> >
> > We have an 'Alexander the Great' wannabe in the whitehouse who has
> > left the ranch unattended and the south fence down.
>
> Bush's stance on amnesty, etc dissapoints me greatly. But, both parties
> are embracing this absurd move in their pandering for the Hispanic vote.
>
> The argument for amnesty is based on economics and compassion, but these
> arguments are opposite reality.
>
> As Bob Ray Sanders puts it, "America has come to depend on the economic
> contribution of illegal aliens" (although he doesn't use this
> insensitive descriptive term, of course).
>
> Gee, by all indications, statistics in CA point to quite the opposite.
> In fact, illegal aliens have come to depend on America's economy.
>
> But of course, they do the jobs "no-one else wants to do". Well,
> certainly legal immigrants from Mexico want to do them, which is one
> reason they came here. One reason no-one wants to do these jobs is
> because the pay for them is quite far below that required to make ends
> meet in America.
>
> So, rather than follow a controlled flow of legal aliens (which is
> neccessary to sustain a growing economy), both parties endorse a
> harebrained approach that assures the pay for the "unwanted" jobs will
> be even lower, which totally screws the immigrants that played by the
> rules.
>
> So, where is the "compassion" directed? Not to legal citizens of this
> country. It seems the compassion is for citizens of another country, who
> are to be rewarded if they successfully break our laws for a set period
> of time.
>
> In this compassionate act, our government encourages illegals to risk
> the desert in assumption that they will eventually get amnesty. Then the
> hand wringing starts every time the inevitable happens, and these
> desperate people die in the desert, or in the back of some coyote's
> truck.
>
> They never seem to realize that the carrot-on-a-stick of amnesty and non
> enforcement of immigration laws are the cause of these deaths.
>
> The assumption that this large group will somehow rise up to the
> standards, and eventually earn enough to give back to the government -
> which is a requirement for most of us that live here - is tremendously
> flawed.  The vast majority of these people will never rise beyond EIC
> levels. Their only tax contribution will be through taxes on goods, and
> poor immigrants don't often buy a lot more than untaxed foodstuffs.
>
> Rather than a "trickle down" effect, we get a "trickle up" effect, in
> that those on the lower end of the economic spectrum must lower their
> standard of living to compete with the illegals, who will not follow the
> myriad and costly legal and social requirements the rest of us do. No
> car insurance (indeed, no registration), overfilled houses, etc.
>
> Whwn you get down to it, the compassion is directed towards those that
> want to pay less for services. Cheaper lawn care, restaurant help, etc.
>
> The true price of this "cheap labor" is an economy thrown completely out
> of whack due to the "deregulation" of immigration. Look at the stats in
> California alone, the costs of medical care, schooling, societal
> services, law enforcement, and you'll see that this labor ain't so cheap.
>
> So, here we have Presidentes Fox and Bush hammering out a compassionate
> solution for these lawbreakers which completely ignores the US
> government's primary responsibilities - protections of our borders,
> protections of our way of life. Both parties seem intent on ignoring
> their mandates, all for the sake of votes.
>
> Another great flaw in this reasoning is that many of the people who
> enter illegally do so not out of impatience with the pace of legal
> immigration, but becaue they simply would not meet the requirements for
> entry.
>
> These people will never enter the system, they will never piny up their
> fair share. Instead, we pay higher insurance for their failure to have
> same, we pay their medical, etc.
>
> And, since many will not qualify for entry due to criminal behavior, we
> end up paying the price for their crimes, and their incarceration.
>
> Quite simply put, it an endorsement and reward for criminal acts which
> puts tremendous strain on our economy, and is a gross negligence of the
> responsibility that government has.
>
> OTOH, Mexico is quite protective of its southern borders. Quite
> aggressive in capturing and deporting those that penetrate it, and they
> charge the home country of these people a tidy sum for their efforts.
>
> Of course, their official stance is that they are doing this for *our*
> protection, assuming these people are bound for the US. Firstly, this is
> in direct contradiction to their appeals for compassion they direct
> northward - asking us for something they in no way will do themselves.
> And, it seems a bit racist as well, in their valiant efforts at
> protecting us from the "scum south of the border" while doing nothing to
> stem the flow of it's own citizens.
>
> What a tremendous load of bullshit.
>
> Well, here's a bit of the backlash: I never employ Hispanic lawn care
> people, nor do I use companies that employ Hispanics when I can avoid
> it. I cannot, and will not be put in the position of checking the legal
> status of the people I hire to mow my lawn, and I certainly cannot trust
> the government or employers to do that. So, I avoid the issue
> altogether. I draw from a labor pool less likely to be part of the
> problem - Black people and white people. Statistically, the chance of
> either of those groups being illegal are less.

Hire Americans!