Here it is folks. It is still in infancy. President Obama will announce his plan on Tuesday which is supposedly more liberal than the Senate version.
The gang of 8 includes:
The Gang of Eight senators who formally introduced the proposal include Democrat Sens. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Bob Menendez (N.J.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who couldn’t attend.
I seem to be missing 2 senators. Senator Flake of AZ and Senator Bennett of Colorado are also part of the gang of 8.
These senators seem clearly united that this bill will not be like the one in 1986 that was passed nor the one in 2007 which did a swan-dive in defeat.
Granted, immigration is a problem in the United States, for a number of reasons. No one denies that it is a devisive issue. Also problematic for the Republicans is the fact they cannot get the number of Hispanic votes needed at the national level. What I am trying to figure out is how you get Republicans to change their minds about the entire topic of immigration. I keep hearing from national leaders that the Republicans must make room in the tent for immigrants, in particular, Hispanics. How do you make room for people when some are unwilling to reject the notion of hostility toward illegal immigrants? I see cognitive dissonance all over this one. Leadership is asking people to believe something they don’t believe. They are also asking Hispanics to embrace a political party where many of its members openly dislike them.
We can’t just throw off our anti-immigration clothes and put on welcome clothing. Perhaps people here in Prince William County are more keenly aware of this fact than the rest of the nation. Remember though, we went through one of the toughest immigration battles of any place in the United States.
“The Resolution,” when first introduced, proposed denial of services to any immigrant who could not prove legal presence. This denial of services at first included schools, library use, parks and swimming pool use, etc. The intent was to basically run illegal immigrants out of town. It was a very draconian resolution that was altered many times as local leaders discovered what they could and could not do legally.
Perhaps the most distressing part of our immigration battle was the tone in local government that seeped, no, gushed out into the community and made the county legitimatize blatant prejudice. (see Elena’s presentation to the BOCS) People were emboldened to speak publicly about “varmints,” “brown faces at the bus stop,”” being scared of Mexicans,” and other types of speech that clearly pointed out the “otherness” of people of Hispanic backgrounds. Just the use of the word “illegals” gained common place in our vocabulary. Every once in a while folks would act like they were talking about all illegal immigrants from various nations but soon they dropped the facade and went back to directing their ire towards those of Hispanic background, because that is who they saw in their every day lives.
How do we go from a county where the chairman of the county board of supervisors calls for an all out war on illegal immigration such as Corey Stewart did just a few short years ago, to a county that welcomes all Latinos and attempts to make Prince William County a good place to live work and play for all? (and vote Republican?)
I don’t know how one makes that transformation. THE RESOLUTION was introduced in July 2007. The county was still fighting over it in 2008. What those who banged the drum of war the loudest could never understand was that the immigrant community rarely distinguished between legal vs illegal. To them, people were people and immigration status wasn’t particularly important to them as it was to those who took a strong stand against illegal immigrants. Local attempts to pit legal immigrants against illegal immigrants fell flat.
It will be interesting to watch Corey try to side-step his anti immigration past. Was it just 2 years ago, before he saw that the national tide had turned, that he was on national TV trying to get a young man’s head on a platter for killing a nun? It was a drunk driving accident and a tragic one at that. However, Stewart saddled up the “illegal” horse and left the drunk driving horse back at the stable. The habitual offender horse was left back at the stables also, apparently, since the county still was rampaging about denying substance abuse services to inmates and county residents who were illegal immigrants. Go figure.
It will be interesting to see the specific proposals and to compare the Senate plan with President Obama’s plan. I vote for the plan that has the best chance of passing that includes the Dream Act. Punishing kids is absurd. We need bright young educated workers. Illegal can be changed to legal with the wave of a ball point pen.
And it was only a few days BEFORE the election that Cory was still spouting the illegal immigrant line he had been selling for years.
Well, I am really hoping that this can change things for me and my family. I keep thinking about all the avenues that this will open for us and others.
I really think the airlines will see a major economic boon if this legislation gets passed. All these years any immigrant without a driver’s license couldn’t fly anywhere in the US, not to mention if 11M people have been here for that long without visiting their families back home. They will leave and come back if they can and will probably do it on a fairly regular basis to make up for all that lost time.
I sure had not thought about that. You ought to write to our esteemed leaders and share that bonus with them.
My bet is, it won’t happen.
These Senators are the same crew that’s been pushing this for years, to include sleazy sex criminal Bob Memendez. Not a distinguihed bunch.
The Heritage Foundation has announced that they intend to lead a movement of conservative telling Repoublicans what to do, not the other way around. This will be a flashpoint issue.
All in all, 2007 was a much better shot for this, when a Republican president was pushing it rather than a Democratic one.
So can the President apply? I am pretty sure he has been paying his taxes all along but just in case maybe the Donald or “Dumass” as I affectionately refer to Mr. Trump, can help him out.
It’s going to fail because the R’s want border security and strict enforcement, Obama doesn’t and chances are he won’t compromise one bit. Apparently compromise is only achieved I’d R’s accept ALL of Obama’s demands.
Obama isn’t a legislator.
This is going to be the battleground issue where the conservatives and Tea Party types assert their ownership of the Republican Party, to the disdain of the ruling elitists who are more concerned with winning elections.
What good will it do you if you can’t win elections? If you can’t win elections you are a powerless voice in the wind.
I don’t think a lot of those people have any claim to the Republican party. They certainly crapped it up for this past election, now didn’t they?
The arguments – and I think they’re phony, specious arguments – in favor of us needing a “comprehensve” bill now are the same ones as 2007. The problem is so “multi-faceted”and complex that us plebians could never understand it, we need to how down and genuflect to our brilliant leaders as only they can solve the issue. As opposed to enforcing current law, or looking out for the rights of American citizens.
There’s a naive thought that because racial demographics in America are changing, and the angry white male vote shrinking, that the GOP will pragmatically take the issue off the table.
But :
1. The only way the voters ands donors who set direction for the GOP would ever permit this would be if their own President were running the show. Bush gave this a BIGGGGG push in 2006/2007. But it wasn’t enough. It ain’t happening now. If Obama says the sky is blue, Republicans in Congress generally hold a press conference to assert that it isn’t. You think they’re going to “cut their own throats” and let him get credit for tens of millions of non-white voters down the line?
2. People in both parties want the issue to remain on the table. Don’t underestimate the degree to which Obama and his advisoruse this as a wedge issue to divide voters. I would be suprprised if when push comes to shove the Democratic Party is willng to concede much. better for them to keep this issue on the table and exploit it – as the GOP does with abortion, for example.
3. The current spokesmen for reform are sad lot. Menendez is front and center – are you kidding me? He’s just been revealed to have been taking sex trips to the dominican Republic to bang 16 year old hookers, in violation of ethics rules. And that blubbering fool LIndsay Graham? Come on. This doesn’t look serious to me.
I don’t think the gang of 8 matters, hammering out something people can live with is what matters.
I haven’t heard the details on the Senate or the Obama plan. It needs to be comprehensive because it needs to look at the entire picture rather than just this aspect or that aspect.
Why do people come here illegally? Because they can’t get here legally. why can’t they? This sort of thing. Visas being over-stayed? Well, that affects homeland security also. How many of the hi jackers were here on an expired visa….and so on and so forth.
it isn’t just about the southern border.
I just heard Rubio on the Senate floor talking about this. I was very impressed with what he had to say. He explained how he and his collegues are planning (hoping) to gradually get this plan accepted. And he stressed “gradually”.
This is not amnesty. Even with a green card, one cannot apply for citizenship for five years.
Not having citizenship takes away the accusation from either side that a party is just trying to pack in votes with new citizens. I wouldn’t care if the those with status adjustment(who were here illegally) were kept from citizenship and or voting for 10 years.
Tell that to Senate Democrats… 😉
No one can tell those fools anything. Either party actually.
“It needs to be comprehensive because it needs to look at the entire picture rather than just this aspect or that aspect.”
That’s as if you call the police because someone stole from your house. And they tell you they’d like to help, but any soltion needs to be part of a “comprehenive” approach where they get a pay raise, the burglar gets to keep part of what they stole, and so on. B***s***.
The members of Congress – and our last two presidents – make a joke of our laws. Now you wat to trust them to “solve” the problem? I trust them not as far as I can spit, which I would like to do in most of their faces.
I completly reject the idea of a “comprehensive” plan brokered by the people who make a joke of our nation and its laws. I favor the “piecemeal” solution. Actually, I favor a “mega comprehensive” plan where step 1A is get the current crop of whores out of office, and only then consider addressing this or any other serious issue with long-term ramifications.
THis is very worth reading – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/28/cost-giving-illegal-immigrants-path-to-citizenship-could-outweigh-fiscal/
If these members of Congress were serious abourt this, they’d have an answer to the basic question “How much will this cost?” to include CBO numbers and such. No one’s doing this. It’s a political circle jerk. Both sides know nothing is likely to happen.
The difference between now and 2007 is that the republicans have taken several butt-kickings at the polls. That is why Marc Rubio and Paul Ryan both support comprehensive immigration reform. Both are tea party heroes and represent the future I’d the Republican Party. I like our chances this time with the support of these tea party heroes. This legislation will be good for PWC, our country, and will also be good politics for the Republican Party.
“will also be good politics for the Republican Party.”
Doubtful.
Reagan granted amnesty.
Bush lost 7% of the “latin” vote compared to Reagan’s election.
So, apparently, the Latin vote is NOT voting for the GOP independently of the “amnesty” issue.
I don’t see why Rubio and Ryan would think comprehensive reform is good for the Republican Party. This will only create legions of new democrats that will ensure the butt-kickings at the polls will continue for a generation. On a practical note, proponents will have to describe why this slow-motion amnesty will stem the tide of illegal immigrants given that the 1986 amnesty was such an utter failure.
I agree with Rick that each measure should be debated and voted on piecemeal. The purpose of comprehensive packages is generally to sneak in stuff that would never pass otherwise.
I think its time to stop using the word “amnesty.” There is no amnesty and if you think there is, you need to rereadthe material out on the proposals or review the definition of amnesty.
Be specific. Let’s talk about specific issues.
Want tighter border security? You’re already getting it.
Posted by Suzy Khimm on January 29, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Legislators have failed to pass a sweeping immigration overhaul for more than five years. But there’s one piece of the 2007 immigration reform bill that they’ve managed to accomplish: pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into border security.
We didn’t get immigration reform done in 2007. But border security got its money. (Ross Franklin/AP)
Under the Senate’s new blueprint for reform, the legalization of undocumented immigrants would only happen if the government “finally commit[s] the resources needed to secure the border,” as well as strict visa enforcement for legal immigrants. It’s a provision that’s similar to Bush’s 2007 immigration bill, which also made legalization contingent on beefed-up border security.
The Senate’s language suggests that the government has held back from devoting money, equipment and personnel to border security. In fact, even though the 2007 immigration bill ultimately failed, we’ve nevertheless hit nearly all of the targets that it established for increased border security—except for achieving absolute “operational control” of the border and mandatory detention of all border-crossers who’ve been apprehended.
The 2007 bill sought to increase the number of Border Patrol agents to 20,000; in FY 2011, we hit 21,444 agents.
The 2007 bill proposed to erect 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles of fencing, 105 radar and camera towers, and four drones; by 2012, we completed 651 miles of vehicle fencing—including 352 miles of pedestrian fencing and 299 vehicle barriers—300 towers, and nine drones, according to Customs and Border Protection
The 2007 bill asked for the resources for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain up to 31,500 people per day; ICE now has funding to detain up to 34,000 individuals at any time, per FY 2012 appropriations.
Finally, the 2007 bill also called for what’s known as “operational control” of the entire border, which the 2006 Secure Fence Act defined as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”
Experts generally agree that “absolute” control of the border is practically impossible, so DHS has instead defined “effective” operational control as “the ability to detect, respond, and interdict illegal activity at the border or after entry into the United States,” as a Congressional Research Service report explains. By that definition, the government had 57 percent of the southern border under “effective control,” up from 31 percent in 2007, due to the new border security measures that were implemented since then. (The 2007 bill also called for mandatory federal implementation of workplace immigration enforcement measures like E-Verify; these have only been put into effect by certain states.)
Such enforcement has come with a large price tag: Last year, Congress funded Customs and Border Protection at $11.7 billion—64 percent more than FY 2006 and $262 million more than in FY 2011, despite the new climate of austerity . And that doesn’t count the $600 million that Congress provided in a separate border security bill in 2010. But the Obama administration believes that it’s also paid dividends: In 2011, apprehensions at the border were at 340,252—the lowest level since 1971—while the Obama administration has deported immigrants at a faster rate than Bush.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-2007-immigration-bill-set-border-security-targets-weve-hit-most-of-them/
As Reagan once said, facts are stubborn things. Obama has done more to enforce border security than any president in history.
McCain, Graham and a few others have seen this clearly for a long time. It is fascinating to watch other Rs now trying to shed their nasty, ugly, immigrant-bashing spots to get on the sensible side of this issue now.
I hope Mr. Stewart will remind the voters in the primary of how hard he rode this horse when he thought it would get him a bunch of easy votes. But I suspect you won’t hear much about it from him.
@Moon-howler
I think the term amnesty is used because …well, there is no penalty. The amnesty is that the illegal alien, whether he has to pay a fine, and get sent to the “end of the line,” whatever that mean, IS STILL GETTING a citizenship path, instead of being deported.
He is paying a fine, paying taxes, and there is no line. That negates any concept of the word “amnesty.”
Paying a fine is a penalty. Sorry, Carg—you don’t get to redefine a perfectly good English word into one you like better.
Why is it so important to you to deport someone? Do you realize how obsessive that sounds. Why? Let’s examine this need. you are aware that most people who are dported come right back, especially if they have family here?
You realize that it is impossible to to seal a border? They couldnt even seal the damn Berlin Wall.
Also, have you ever talked to someone who has been deported and has come back? I mean sat down and had a conversation with them? I have. Its interesting to hear what motivates and what is involved in making the trip, especially if NOT from Mexico.
CIR, hallelujah! Who can people hate once immigrants can legalize their status? It’s good to be on the right side of history. Thank you 9500 Liberty!
I have a few suggestions…..we are on all the lists also Elena.
Scout,
Did you miss where Corey was sharing his wisdom post election with Mitt Romney? He was giving him advice on how to connect with a diverse community, like he did during his re-election bid 😉
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/obamas-victory-presents-gop-with-demographic-test.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Get ready for a good laugh. The new reality Corey creates for himself is quite amazing. If only it were true.
RIP Help Save Manassas
Help Sava Manassas was a great success, according to Corey Stewart.
maybe that should be his campaign slogan. 🙄
@Cargosquid
Someone told me they heard his speak locally the other night and that he tried to ride both horses at once. That is absurd! I would have loved to have heard that one!
I don’t think he gets the correlation between his “illegals” horse and Latino voters. Maybe that’s his new magic trick.
@Starryflights
That’s actually good information, Starry, if in fact it is all true. It seems somewhat dubious that this is all coming out now.
The question of whether this is a de-facto amnesty really depends on the size of the fine and the process for deciding which illegal aliens become citizens. American citizenship is a highly valued and sought after status, so a small fine would indeed amount to a de-facto amnesty. Let’s be real. Any fine less than $50K would be just a nominal fee for citizenship relative to its value.
The second question concerns which illegal aliens will be accepted for citizenship. Do we take everyone with a clean record, regardless of education, labor skills, or language? Or do we try to pick people that will benefit the country instead of people that are likely to be on welfare? I would much rather accept a medical doctor (after Obamacare goes into effect they will be scarce) than an unskilled laborer who never finished high school. If we just take anyone, that amounts to a de-facto amnesty, because that’s not how it works for everyone else desiring citizenship.
The third question is how do we avoid having to do this again? As the article linked by Starry indicates, we can never completely shut down the flow across the border. Won’t this citizenship path attract more people to cross the border illegally? What happens in 20 years when the next 10 million illegals want citizenship?
I am strongly in favor of LEGAL immigration. The details of how this is to be carried out will determine if it is de-facto amnesty. If it is, I will strongly oppose it.
If I closed my eyes I would think that Paul Ralph Ehrlich was here before us. Eugenics at its best.
Don’t you feel that is an elitist outlook? What will all the educated do when the apples are rotting on the trees and the strawberries are haven’t been picked? Those people who do that kind of work are very valuable to our agricultural system, just as the oystermen, fishermen, and crab pickers are to our food industry. Today the plumbers are the ones with the Cadillacs.
I have no problem with lettuce pickers and lawn care folks becoming citizens. They are actually every bit as important as a software writer from India. If there is a food shortage for some reason, I would venture to say that agricultural worker is might become more important than the software designer.
Most immigrants to America came here and worked with their backs and hands, not their heads. They and their off spring came to become the backbone of America and just as deserving of citizenship as you or I.
What I find interesting is that the last immigration issue was back in the 80’s with Reagan. What two events link both era’s together? A real estate boom and then bust. Only this time the bust was cataclysmic.
We needed people to build the homes, we used them up and then when we didn’t need them anymore we, as in a nation, wanted to toss the immigrants aside.
I loved Obama’s speech. Espeically when he reminded this country that we are a nation of immigrants, and before we were an “us” we were a “them”. I know my family as russian, german, and polish immigrants (throw on Jew to make even more of a “them”) were very much hated. And yet, here I am today, completely assimilated.
Again, I agree with Kelly. I am getting a little tired of the smiley facers who want to take in the poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” without one wiff of adult responsibility for the costs that they appear to expect the rest of us to pay for- in terms of benefits costs, public administration costs and jobs. Yes, it is a spending problem. Its not just fencing, its also about big government support costs. When that phrase was put on the statue of liberty, there was immigration control. You had to be sponsored, able to take care of yourself, a non-criminal and healthy – and certainly not pregnant. I no longer believe that we can control the borders. That is a dead issue for me. We do not have the will to do what it takes, but lets not then incentivize the problem again. One more time is not good enough — fool me once shame on you , fool me twice….
Wouldn’t it be a better world if we worried more about finding work – subsidizing it – for our returning patriots than protecting and expanding the benefits and the jobs of illegal aliens?
@Blue,
How many of our returning troops, with their skill set, do you think want to do lawn care, pick tomatoes, or dishwashing?
As for “You had to be sponsored, able to take care of yourself, a non-criminal and healthy – and certainly not pregnant”
I think you need to check your ‘facts.’ You had to be pronounced healthy is about the only thing I will agree with. Most immigrants didn’t have sponsors, some were pregnant and who the hell knows who was a criminal and who wasn’t.
Those rascally facts again keep getting in the way of your vision of America.
Kelly,
You probably have never heard of Carlos Castro. He is a resident of Woodbridge and a small business owner, owns at least two grocery stores on the eastern end. He illegally emmigrated here from El Salvador. He adjusted his status, became a citizen eventually, is a very involved community member. He doesn’t have a PhD, he doesn’t have a masters degree in some technical field but he is the backbone of our small business community in PWC.
So Blue, you are native American? What tribe? 🙂
“We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate”- Barack Obama, Jan. 29, 2013. As soon as we start talking about what this would actually do to and for America, it dies.
Every few years the parties put us through this absurd pony show instead of addressing the individual issues involved and solving the illegal immigration problem. We should deport illegal immigrants when they are found; we should mandate use of everify for employers; we should punish employers who profit off illegal labor. And we should issue as many guest worker permits as we actually need to.
And, we should clean up the problems in the legal immigration system. That issue s not intrinsically tied to the illegal immigration problem, and doesn’t need a “comprehensive” i.e. masturbatory approach.
I think “comprehensive” means to address all the problems that deal with immigration–from Microsoft importing workers, to PWC using guest teachers for 3 years to status adjustment for those who have been living in the shadows for years.
What we don’t need is 75 different laws acting as a band aid on one problem only to create a problem somewhere else.
Thus, we need comprehensive reform.
@Elena
Probably some Massachusetts tribe, having stepped off the boat as a 7-year indentured servant in 1632. But at least he had a job!
On the other side, they did not come as Irish slaves (1640s- 1730s)– they came latter during the genocidal famine and the humanitarian exportation of the problem in the 1840s
Not sure what your point is, but thanks for asking.
@Moon-howler
All I did was say “I THINK…..about why that word is used.” Do you see ANY OTHER comment here by me, at all? Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Thus, we need comprehensive reform.
But we’ll still get those disparate laws. Except in a “comprehensive reform bill” it won’t be read because it will be 800 pages long, filled with legalese, and stuffed with pork.
immigration covers a lot of area. What do you mean it wont be read? It will be read by those who need to read it.
“Again, I agree with Kelly. I am getting a little tired of the smiley facers who want to take in the poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” without one wiff of adult responsibility for the costs that they appear to expect the rest of us to pay for- in terms of benefits costs, public administration costs and jobs.”
These immigrants are no different and your blatent disrespect is crystal clear Blue. THAT was my point.
“What we don’t need is 75 different laws acting as a band aid on one problem ”
Totally disagree. We don’t enact “comprehensive” laws on other matters. We enact laws and refine our society by repealing some laws and enacting new ones. This line that we can only progress by enacting one big package is bullcrap being fed to you by bulls***ers.
Actually we do. Do you not think that NCLB was comprehensive?
I just find it fascinating that so many can completely disregard history in evaluating the current wave of immigration. The things being said on this blog are the same things said during every other wave. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT! The ONLY difference I can see is that the people immigrating, primarily, have brown skin and not white skin. Yes, it is true that “laws” are in place now that were not in place during previous waves, however, our “laws” haven’t been addressed in a major way for almost 30 years and there is no effective mechanism to regulate immigration in a realistic and necessary way. It amazes me how many people spout the “get in line” language, not realizing that there IS NO LINE for the vast majority of people. A US citizen can get a visa and visit any country they like. In many countries, there is no path to get visa to escape a country of poverty and no future. Immigration is the only way the population of the US will grow. If there is no population growth, the economy will shrink and it WILL be painful and could doom the future of the country. I smell a strong whiff of fear…fear that the newcomers WILL persevere and in fact, become more successful than some of the entitled people we already have here who were BORN citizens.
I just want the millions of immigrants that are twisting in the wind to have some type of legal status that allows their kids to find the American Dream and to pay taxes. Lets put a dent in the underground and non taxed economy.
TWINAD, my fear is not that the incoming immigrants will succeed. My fear is that we are considering taking in millions of uneducated poor, when we alreay have uneducated poor who need jobs. We’re watching the safety net for our own underclass get shredded. There is no particular logic to what’s happening. Illegal immigration is lowering wages for non-college graduate citizens, reducing the amount of available jobs for non-college graduate citizens, and increasing wage disparity.
There is a huge distance between non-college grads and people with no education as far as job skills go.
I have no problem with further immigration policy (legal) being very much tied to the current job market.
Right now though, people who need foreign workers have to do uphill battle with the various tenacles of immigration. Those foreign born workers in the arts and entertainment sector, food service, education, etc. are very difficult to get in to the country legally.
Replace American workers? If you need a French chef, an American just isn’t going to cut it. Need a Russian dancer? You can’t go recruiting in Nashville. Comprehensive? yes. It isn’t all about lettuce pickers and migrant farm workers. Not even close.
But even the non-skilled workers are needed because US citizens often will not fill the jobs – as in not even apply for them.
If there were less illegal immigrants, the emplyers would pay more for the jobs, American citizens would apply, and unemployment woukd go down.
Illegal immigration does fuel “growth”. By reducing wages.
@Rick
So, lets say all the illegal immigrants left. Moved. Vamanos. Do you think Americans would all flock towards those jobs?
Another scenario–let’s say all the illgal immigrants had their status adjusted and they were foreign natonals living in the USA. Legal. Then should the salaries raise?
@Rick Bentley
I’m familiar with a certain textile industry. These mills started in the South and stayed because of cheap labor. The industry boomed and there weren’t enough people to fill the jobs (which have now been reduced by the housing bust and mechanization) so the mills initially sought workers from nearby states. The workers would stay for a few months, get homesick or sick of the work, and leave. The mill owners, with the blessing of the town, recruited Hispanic workers who had moved into the state for construction during the Olympics. Had the workers not come, the town would have faced a great deal of hardship. It would be like Manassas City losing Micron. Now most of these firms are multi-nationals which are still there because of the non-union South and its low wages.
“So, lets say all the illegal immigrants left. Moved. Vamanos. Do you think Americans would all flock towards those jobs?”
hte pay rates would go up, more Americans would have jobs. Unemployment would go down, and the welfare rolls would be reduced, yes. Obviously.
We are capable of cleaing our own buildings, doing our own construction and lawn work, and working in restaurant. It’s just a question of whether businesses can get away with paying a little less for those things, usually passing the actual cost on to the rest of us.
You really think that would change? I do not. An awful lot of people don’t want to do work like that and figure out a way so they don’t have to.
Hi Rick,
I just don’t think you actually know a single illegal immigrant or have a grasp of the reasons they come here. Your concern is that we are taking in the uneducated poor, but what you are not acknowledging is that it would be one hell of a lot easier for them to be poor in the country they were raised in then to come here and be poor. A: It’s much cheaper to live in Guatemala, Mexico or El Salvador than it is here. They need only about 5% of the money they would make here to live on the same level there. B. It’s is HARD to make the physical journey here, it’s hard to get the money to pay a coyote to even have a chance to make it here alive, and it’s REALLY hard for them to leave their family (especially since most Latino’s come from large, close knit families), knowing that they may never see them again. Think of all the American’s living a few hours south of here in Danville, VA where unemployment is sky high. They could get a ride here in a CAR or a BUS and they won’t even leave their home to come here to get a job where unemployment is 5%. Due to their illegal status, they are not eligible for any government assistance…they come here knowing they need to make it on their own. There will be no safety net for them here. Everyone has to pay their own way. On another note, you probably already know I’m married to one of the illegals…we have been together for about 13 years and married for over 11. He can’t get legal status because no paperwork was underway as of 4/01, but MANY of his relatives have subsequently gained legal residency and become citizens since I have known him. In other words, many of his family members that were illegal when I met them are now legal or citizens. Hmmm…let me tick off what they are all doing now. One of his female cousins has been running a housecleaning business since I’ve known her. Her husband was a roofer, but he quit his job to help her grow her business and they have about a dozen employees now. She is a citizen, he is a green card holder. Another of his male cousins was a plumber working for a large plumbing company when I met him. He quit that and started his own business doing window cleaning and pressure washing. That company has grown to the point that he doesn’t do those low paying jobs anymore…he strictly does remodeling/painting/residential construction now and lives in a $700,000 house. Another cousin also runs his own residential construction company, and is equally successful. My husband has his own business that he started in 2007. Are you seeing a pattern? Entrepreneurs. That’s what all that is about…they depend on themselves and no one else to make sure they are successful. He has other cousins that have also started businesses in North Carolina and are doing very well. Is every single relative a business owner? No, but all of them hold down jobs, whether they work for a cleaning company, a landscape company, at a store whatever. And the cousins that run their businesses? Their children are graduating from high school and going to college. One is at Towson, some are at Montgomery College, some are at Frostburg State. These people are not downtrodden losers is my point! They contribute to our society in a meaningful way and are not a drain on it in any way. Are there going to be some people that need help? Probably, but not nearly as many that can stand on their own two feet and add to society. Just my perspective from the inside.
Thanks, Twinad, for that first hand experience.
I know some of the people Twinad is talking about and every word she says is true.
@Twinad
I to appreciate your comments Twinad, you make a strong argument for ending the social welfare system that continues to encourage able bodied Americans to not work.for ever longer period of time. But, Rick is right too. Our obligation is first to our returning veterans and then to our citizens to make sure that those opportunities for success are available to them first. I am not sure I believe that these success stories are limited to niche markets that americans would not do if not encouraged to do otherwise. Manassas has several examples. That said, I am sympathetic to the suggestion that as a part of comprehensive immigration reform, those who have proven that they can and are standing on their own should be at the head of the line – once the borders stop leaking.
There are no lines.
Show me where there is a line.
Ah, “once the borders stop leaking” caveat. In other words, never. Borders cannot be sealed. They can be made more difficult to penetrate but they can never be made impossible to get through, especially borders as long as ours.
Circling back around on this thread, Sen. Menendez appears to go south to abuse children. He’s a gonner and the sooner the better. Creep. None of the girls that have come forward are 18- the legal age in a nation that otherwise allows prostitution. He likes’em young. Gov Christy can then appoint – wait for it — Geraldo !
We prefer to not spread rumors and gossip here.
Nothing has been proven about Sen. Menendez. You know, you can shoot off your mouth and make libelous remarks about people but it is *I* who will get sued for them.