<p>Isn’t this debate sort of moot when Mexico, Canada and the US are merging into 1 country?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA</a></p>
<p>Why isnt anyone talking about THIS?</p>
<p>Look; I’ve already conceded that what NEEDS to be done and what SHOULD be done, WON’T be done. So you have nothing to worry about. Why get so upset? You know how the system is. There’s a lot of talk from the politicians on curbing “ILLEGAL” immigrants, security, and a host of other issues. In the end, most won’t even be touched. Neither will your ILLEGAL aliens. So, don’t worry about it.</p>
<p>CGM; Don’t “Try” and tell me what Jesus would think or do. You will lose. You have no idea.</p>
<p>Romans 13:1-5 – Be subject to the governing authorities because they are ordained by God (v1). </p>
<p>1 Peter 2:13,14 – Submit to civil rulers “for the Lord’s sake”</p>
<p>1 Timothy 2:1,2 – Prayer and thanksgiving should be made for kings and all in authority.</p>
<p>I can play this game all day. You DON’T want to go there. You have no idea what you’re getting into.</p>
<p>Please; I didn’t bring up the bible, Jesus, or any other moral issue here; you did. That’s not what this is about. I brought up legal positions. If you want to take my screen name and correlate it to what “Jesus would do” and base it on your ignorance; then go for it. You will lose.</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is; You and the like WANT illegal immigrants. You give all this talk of love and peace and our fellow mankind, but the truth is you want and need ILLEGAL immigrants. They keep our economy going; prices down; take jobs that others won’t, etc… It’s a catch-22. If you make them LEGAL immigrants, then they will get paid more; get worker’s benefits, etc… The price of all the goods and services they are associated with will go up. Also; you argue this issue because it’s a rhetorical debate so you feel that you can’t lose it. The truth is; there is only one way to reduce, stop, and prohibit illegal immigration. But you don’t have the stomach for it. So, you want it both ways. You want to agree that there are too many immigrants coming into our country illegally for a number of reasons. You want them to be able to stay now that they are here. You will agree that we shouldn’t just have open borders and continue to allow more people to just come across anytime they want. But, you aren’t willing to do what it takes to fix this. Then, the ones who do get amnesty will expect higher pay and benefits so you will complain about rising prices and higher unemployment because the now LEGAL immigrants will also be able to compete in the traditional work force.</p>
<p>See, you can argue all you want. Your arguments aren’t new. There is only 1 way to handle illegal immigration. Force Mexico (Who is the largest contributor of illegal immigrants) to address their socio-economic problems. Make it so people aren’t wanting to leave so badly. As far as the ones that are here goes; I don’t believe in amnesty. If you get Mexico to address their problems, many won’t come over in the first place, and many of the “Recent” illegals might go back. Most people don’t WANT to leave the country they were born in. I’ve lived, visited, and worked in 15 countries now. While some people are very impressed with the United States, that doesn’t mean they would leave their country to automatically move here. Many of our immigrants in our country today came over in the beginning, during, and end of WWI and WWII. If it had not been for such drastic wars in Europe, our immigration wouldn’t have been anywhere near as many. </p>
<p>So, fixing Mexico is not something that can be done over night. But that is what needs to be done. And those illegals here now, who get caught, need to be sent back immediately and without compassion. Word of Enforcement of the law will spread to the potential illegals. Just like word of non-enforcement of the law has spread. That’s why they keep coming. Nothing happens if they get caught. Worse case is they are deported and come back again in a few weeks or months. But, if they know that enforcement of the law will be followed seriously, there will be second thoughts. If families are separated because mom got deported and we don’t allow her to stay because of her husband or kids, then they will indeed think twice.</p>
<p>Again, why are we debating this. Your side has already won this one. The politicians are all talk on this. The ultra-liberals will rationalize and defend the illegals. Those who have defended the constitution of the United States for the CITIZENS of this country will continue to shake their heads in disbelief at the blood, sweat, and tears they’ve seen wasted. Terrorists or other radical group that wants to impact our country will have a safe haven across the border. And the list goes on. Like I said; I don’t know why you are arguing about this. You’ve won.</p>
<p>Barrons,</p>
<p>Thanks for sparking this debate with your original posting. To avoid being accused of ■■■■■■■■, you should consider giving your personal opinion at that time instead of giving the impression that you agree with the article’s thesis. </p>
<p>The AIDS posting, on the other hand, was totally uncalled for.</p>
<p>The Aids origination study is considered pretty big news as for years people have been looking for patient zero and last I heard it was some flight attendant who went to Africa or such. The fact that it was done by a more known major university researcher makes it pretty important news.</p>
<p>Leal,</p>
<p>The Lou Dobbs video you linked to says very little of substance on the issue of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America” (SPP). I read <a href=“http://spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp[/url]”>http://spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp</a>, but that is obviously not an impartial analysis. Do you know of any useful articles on the pros and cons of this “partnership”?</p>
<p>I’m impressed with the fact that you’re at 5,808 posts. Few master baiters and trollers could survive as long. My hat’s off to you, barrons.</p>
<p>No, I don’t really know too much about it. I have watched that one video (that I posted) but there are LOTS more on youtube, some from mainstream news reports like the one I posted. I agree that the site you posted in not exactly impartial. I am in the process of cross-referencing different sources. I really don’t know what to think about it yet. </p>
<p>What blows my mind is that, whatever the pros and cons may be, this was done so secretively. I mean, isn’t this a rather BIG DECISION??? Hello, why didn’t the US citizens have a say in this? Most people don’t even know about it! What is the true motivation here?</p>
<p>Incidentally, Republican candidate Ron Paul is against this union and against amnesty. He favors tightening our security here and less meddling in other countries. He favors more trade and commerce with other countries, and making them our friends. </p>
<p>I’m not sure what I think about the immigration issue, but I do know that we need to understand what’s going on with this North American Union thing, as it is obviously a major factor in all this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t remove the need for low-cost labor in the US.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gordon Hanson hits it right on the nose. What we need is sensible, economically-based policy. Not policies that will run roughshod over industries that need this kind of labor to survive, not to mention the people working in them (not all of whom are illegal.)</p>
<p>Leal,</p>
<p>My problem is that I don’t see anything secretive about SSP (they have a website, <a href=“http://www.spp.gov%5B/url%5D”>www.spp.gov</a> complete with news releases.) I also don’t see “North American Union” anywhere except in an alarmist CNN report.</p>
<p>Is forming a Union with Mexico and Canada a big decision that should be debated publicly and ratified/rejected by Congress? Yes.</p>
<p>Is SPP such a Union? I don’t see it.</p>
<p>There was also some grumblings earlier this year against a “NAFTA Superhighway.” The way I understand it, people were worried that the government was “secretly” developing a a highway all the way from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. Surprise! the Interstate system ALREADY connects many of our border towns, including, off the top of my head, El Paso and Brownsville on the Mexican border and Detroit on the Canadian border.</p>
<p>I think it’s all much-to-do-about-nothing.</p>
<p>There’s a fair amount of both hypocrisy and racism in the hysteria about illegal immigration. Prior to 1890, there were no Federal immigration laws (though states had some regulations). My English (1600’s) and Irish (1850’s) ancestors arrived and took root in this country without so much as a “by your leave.” (And I bet more than a few Native Americans wish they’d built a wall and had rigorous entry requirements.)</p>
<p>When Federal immigration was set up, there were two main categories of exclusion: contagious disease and likelihood of becoming a public charge. Note that first- and second-class passengers arriving by ship did not have to go through the more rigorous inspection like those at Ellis Island, being subject only to a cursory shipboard inspection with the presumption that their ticket testified to their economic status etc.</p>
<p>Later US immigration laws, some of which still underpin immigration policy today, were blatantly racist, setting high quotas for people named Browne, DuVal, or Muller, low or nil quotas for people named Candelaria, Yama****a, or Chang. (Still not sure how my Russian ancestors (1920’s) slipped in…someone must have decided they were the “right” kind of people.)</p>
<p>You wouldn’t see half the furor about illegal immigration today if there were more readily identifiable Smythe’s than Santiago’s among the numbers.
The self-righteous “they should follow the law” is convenient shield to hide behind.</p>
<p>The overwhelming majority of “illegal” immigrants come to this country for the same reasons that most of our ancestors did: economic opportunity or freedom from persecution. (Anyone else find it ironic that despite our lip service of bringing freedom to the Middle East…okay, we can all admit that it’s just a phrase of propaganda, but still!..the number of Iraqis fleeing death and destruction in their homeland allowed to immigrate to the US is numbered in the low hundreds while a commie-symp country like Sweden has taken thousands?) </p>
<p>For the most part, they also follow, within families, the same pattern of previous immigrant waves: the first generation works like hell and is still rooted in the ways of the Old Country, the second generation has a foot in each, and the third generation is assimilated American. </p>
<p>What we need is a system that is both legal and rational. We have neither and the anti-immigrant hysteria clings to the former at the expense of the latter. And Lou Dobbs is among the worst of the whack jobs and nut cases, along with Tom Tancredo, who, announcing that he will not run again for his Congressional seat, is probably going to go on patrol with the Minutemen (such a disgrace to the original) or something.</p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>Let’s not give too much credit to our immigration policies toward East Asians. There were plenty of quotas directed during our “Yellow Peril.” I don’t doubt for a second, however, that Japanese or Korean immigrants today would find it much easier to get in than any well-educated Mexican. </p>
<p>But of course the policies are never based on ethnicity or nationality.</p>
<p>Apparently the “smoking gun” of this “North American Union” scare is a report from the Council on Foreign Relations:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf</a></p>
<p>First, to soothe the nationalistic sensibilities of some, here’s a passage from the report:</p>
<p>“North America is different from other regions of the world and must find its own cooperative route forward. A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other’s national sovereignty.”</p>
<p>The report is a good read. People opposed to “free trade” will probably find much to criticize. Those in favor of “free trade” will probably see it as a natural progression for NAFTA.</p>
<p>Either way, this is not a treaty and not even the official policy of any government, but merely a collection of proposals from a think-tank.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a racial issue. You think it wouldn’t be as bad if the names were smith instead of santiago. That’s not racism, that’s geography. The USA borders Mexico, not germany or austria. If Canada was as bad off as Mexico is, and they were illegally coming across the border as Mexico and Central America is, I believe that we’d have the same opinions. Except from those in Montana, New York, Washington, etc… instead of Arizona, California, and Texas.</p>
<p>The majority of the illegal immigrants do come to this country for economics. I’ll give you that. NOT however from freedom from persecution. Another area that you have mistakenly posted is that they come here with families for the most part just like the past traditional and legal immigrants do. That is not correct. Most reports from both sides of the issue admit that a very large portion of the illegal immigrants send money back to their native country. Many of them aren’t even interested in bringing their families. The economics is so different between the two countries; it’s similar to jobs you see offered to Americans in the Middle East working electronics and telecommunication. Basically $100,000 a year for 2 years, taxes paid, etc… People leave their families for this and are quite well off to do whatever. I have a few friends who are working in the middle east for some of these companies who need this skilled labor. The illegal immigrants do similar in the USA. Their economics is so bad, that if they come to the USA and work for so many years, and then go back to Mexico, it’s like working 20-30 years. Hell, in San Diego County last year, Migrant workers sent home to Mexico; 1.1 BILLION DOLLARS. That’s with a “B”.</p>
<p>I bet you probably didn’t know that the president of Mexico is actually complaining to the USA that “HIS” illegal immigrants and migrant workers, who the EMPLOYERS try doing the right thing and hired these people not knowing that had FAKE paperwork; the president of Mexico is actually complaining because Social Security and Medicaid taxes have been taken out of their paychecks. And being many of them will return to Mexico once they have enough money; the President of Mexico is trying to get the USA to authorize these people social security and have that money sent to them in Mexico. Talk about having balls.</p>
<p>See, illegal immigrants is not just about people who want to move to this country from abroad and make this their own and pledge allegiance to it. It’s also about the illegal immigrants that you want here to keep the cost of lettuce and asparagus down. They make roughly $10-$12 an hour; (Yes, they do); most don’t pay income tax, federal or state, property tax, insurance, etc… Yet, we let their kids go to school. Let them go to the doctor when they are sick. Waiver claims when they are at fault in an accident. And now are being expected to send money to them in Mexico when they move back for Social Security. </p>
<p>No, too many people see this as their liberal political cause to help mankind. Sort of like saving the spotted Owl. I’ll tell you what. You take care of the kids and families in the Appalachians who are poor. You take care of the families in the Coal areas of West Virginia who’s got health and nutrition issues. You take care of the 14 year old girls in L.A. , New York, Chicago, etc… selling their bodies. You take care of the drug users and meth babies. You do all these things first (That’s where I contribute) and I won’t consider your political views as being totally hypocritical. Don’t throw stupid 1 liners like “What would Jesus Do” as though you know. You have no idea. You take care of the problems with our citizens and then I’ll support your ILLEGALs. I wonder how much quicker help the state of California could have provided to their fire victims if they had the money that they spent on illegal immigration problems. No, you take care of our economic, health, drug, problems in our country and then you can deal with other people who want to come over and leach off of us.</p>
<p>Christcorps,</p>
<p>You’re still ignoring the economic facts. Employers want/need the low-cost labor. You can’t change that with the wave of a legislative hand.</p>
<p>Yes, geography plays a role, but so does the fact that you can no longer make the Poles or Italians do the low-cost labor like at the turn of the century. If Mexicans aren’t going to do it, who will? The Japanese? Fat chance. I agree that we should be regulating illegal immigrants better, but we can’t just put up a wall and pretend the economy will go away. Unfortunately, homo economicus doesn’t work that way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. I just tire of people making statements that fairly simple economic theory demonstrates to be false. It’s about time we reached for the spigot instead of the mops.</p>
<p>UCLA’ you are correct. That is why if you read my past post you’ll see where I said that the way to fix this is to force Mexico into solving their economic issues. That will largely impact the illegal immigration. As far as our side of the border and economics go, people would have to deal with higher cost for the cheap products and services that the illegals are contributing to. That cost would still be cheaper than supporting the illegals.</p>
<p>The biggest problem we have is the 2 sided sword of prosperity. Our country is much better off than most of the world. Even those that we consider “Poor” aren’t nearly as poor as those in many countries. Our unions, while initially had good intentions, have inflated our economy. When you pay people $50 a hour to do certain work, the cost of the product or service goes up for the customer. That’s why many of our industries are no longer leaders in the world. </p>
<p>It is all about economics. Force Mexico to address their economics and their people won’t be trying to leave in droves. But again, this is all in vane. The politicians only talk. Illegal immigration will continue. Unfortunately, our country, which is probably currently still the greatest country in the world for an individual to succeed in, is gradually getting weaker. The only way to balance economics is to either lower the prosperity of one country or raise that of the others. Until then, illegal immigration will be a problem. Outsourcing of jobs overseas will continue to be a problem. Buying cheap goods from China, Thailand, Mexico, etc… will still be a problem.</p>
<p>Christcorp,</p>
<p>You cannot ignore, however, the need for low-cost unskilled labor in the US. We don’t exactly have a comparative advantage in unskilled labor in the US, and in numerical terms, we probably have a shortage.</p>
<p>It’s not just that Latin Americans want to come here. It’s the fact that jobs exist for them. When you have a country where a majority of people are trained and work in the service industry, you’re going to have to get the unskilled labor from somewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unions have very little to do with this. It’s all about comparative advantage. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. It’s mostly comparative advantage. Japan has it in cars, and Korea has it in LCDs. We do not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then where do we get the unskilled labor from? The aether?</p>
<p>The point you keep missing isn’t that we’re getting weaker. It’s that other countries are getting stronger. Where was Japan economically in the 60s? Korea? I mean, it’s not like the US just stopped growing. Countries like Japan and Korea just grew really really quickly.</p>
<p>You know when we’ll stop getting droves of Mexicans? When Mexico develops. Then the Colombians will come instead. Unless, of course, we entirely stop subsidize farming and other industries that lack a comparative advantage and need low-cost labor. The chance of us not subsidizing farming?</p>
<p>Probably the same as the chance of Alaska becoming the most highly populated state in the next 5 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the info. I’ll take that into consideration. I hope you’re right! Many people do not trust the motivation of the CFR; hence the concern.</p>
<p>I really don’t know much about is so really can’t comment any further.</p>
<p>Carry on.</p>
<p>UCLA; the low cost labor costs will change dramatically if amnesty or some form of “Legal” immigration, is that they will then be eligible for other benefits, higher wages, workman’s comp, and a host of other issues. The catch-22 is that for people to be “Satisfied” with certain economic conditions, it requires these workers to be “Illegal”. To resolve that issue means that prices, wages, benefits, etc… will go up.</p>
<p>
Income tax is supposed to be withheld by the employer (along with Social Security tax, which they’ll never benefit from.) Unless the employer is breaking the tax laws that money gets collected up front - although many don’t earn enough to meet the threshold for income tax liability, and would be eligible for a refund if they filed a return. Property tax is paid from the tenant’s rent by the landlord. Sales tax is collected at the store in all goods sold. Gas tax is collected at the pump. It’s impossible to live in America without paying taxes. Claiming the opposite is just evidence of an opinion in search of a justification.</p>
<p>They can’t get auto insurance because they can’t get drivers licenses - and that’s our decision, not theirs. Voters like you have created the problem and blamed it on them. Good work.</p>
<p>
Christians are every bit as racist and insensitive as non-Christians. Indeed it has been my personal experience that Christians are in many areas far more racist than anyone else. I in fact know more kind and considerate non-Christians than I do Christians, and I am a Christian myself – twice weekly churchgoing, a true born-again believer. For a long time I wondered what good was their Jesus when He had apparently no power to cause loving hearts in them for other humans. It occurred to me that the Church is simply filled with people who claim to be Christians and who are as selfish and lost as the worst non-believers.</p>
<p>I don’t think Christians must support illegal immigration. Indeed I don’t support it. But a lot of Christians are against “The Illegals” themselves, and demonstrate little or no compassion for their plight. I think their attitude runs contrary to the heart of Christ. While I do not think Jesus would support the breaking of any law that did not run afoul His Father’s law, there is no way He would look on those poor people running across our borders and be more concerned with some human government’s law than He would be for the people’s health and, more importantly, their souls. I think He would rather leave Caesar to take care of what belongs to Caesar while He focused on taking care of what belongs to God. The people would be uppermost in his mind, not some government law that God has put humans in charge of enforcing.</p>
<p>Romans 13:1-5 does not command Christians to enforce any law at all. It instead commands us, as believers, to obey the law ourselves because God put leaders of the government in charge to deal with government affairs as they see fit. If we see “illegals”, many of whom are likely non-believers themselves, breaking the law, we have no obligation in the Holy Scriptures to enforce any human law against them.</p>
<p>1 Peter 2:13,14, like Romans 13:1-5 is a command to believers to submit to civil rulers as a testimony of God’s honor in them. It gives us not a single command to be concerned with the lawbreaking of anyone else, certainly not non-believers.</p>
<p>1 Timothy 2:1,2 also fails to give us even a single command to be concerned with what law illegal immigrants break as they enter this Godforsaken place. It simply tells us to pray and be concerned for everyone, including illegal immigrants, kings, and other authorities, so that we please God by demonstrating the dignity this behavior implies. I doubt, very seriously, that there is even one Christian in America who so stridently whines against illegal immigrants, and who also prays for them as the Holy Scriptures command.</p>
<p>Again, I do not think Christians must, or even should, support illegal immigration. Breaking the law is wrong. But we have no duty to be more concerned with immigration law than we are for the lives and souls of the immigrants themselves. Indeed, I see no duty placed upon us, in all of scripture, to lobby for and/or enforce any government law. I am glad of this because I do not cherish or even sense my American citizenship that much, unlike so many Christians. I certainly sense and cherish my heavenly citizenship a great deal more. Indeed I look forward, passionately, to getting out of this cursed place filled with so many selfish and racist Christians, to see my true home.</p>