Democrats & Liberals Archives

Straightforward Immigration Reform

Bush is pushing immigration reform. Last year Bush’s position was close to that of the Democrats. This year Bush’s position is closer to that of the Republicans: more punitive and less accommodating to the undocumented. The legislative proposals I have seen are much too complex. Reform should be straightforward, understandable to anyone.

The L.A. Times describes one plan in Congress as follows:

For instance, one plan would require illegal immigrants wishing to remain in the United States to return to their country of origin first and pay a $10,000 fine to obtain a three-year work visa. The visas would be renewable, at a cost of $3,500. Also, illegal immigrants who were in the U.S. before June 1, 2006, who paid various fees and fines and who met other criteria, including learning English, eventually could seek to become citizens.

This is ridiculous. First they must return to their country of origin. Then they must pay $10,000 to get a visa to return. Where on earth will they get $10,000 - plus travelling expenses? From the pittance they have earned in the U.S.? Where will they get the $3,500 to renew the visa? These conditions make no sense. People who can pay such fees, stay where they are and don't put their life in their hands to come to the U.S.

Legislators are so intent on "punishing lawbreakers" and scared stiff of offering "amnesty," that they can't think straight. Immigration reform should consist of 2 parts:

  1. PREVENTING EMPLOYMENT OF UNDOCUMENTED - If there is no prospect of employment nobody would risk his or her life to sneak into the U.S. The most efficient and reliable way to prevent the undocumented from gaining employment is to make hiring them a crime. We punish the informed employer, not the ignorant employee. Send a few employers to jail for committing this crime and the border will become quiet. Sure, we must supply the employer with tools for checking legality of applicants.

  2. REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNDOCUMENTED - Having 12 million undocumented people in the country is not healthy. The easiest way to reduce this number is to enable each of them to become legal residents - not citizens, merely legal residents - in a given amount of time, let us say 3 years. First, we investigate them to see that they don't have a criminal past. If they do, we deport them. If they are clean, they pay a fine for sneaking in, pass a simple American history test, and they become legal residents. The usual rules for gaining citizenship then apply.
Simple and straightforward. We take care of the entire problem.

The whole idea of hunting down the poor who are trying to cross the American-Mexican border makes me ill. Wretchedly poor people suffer and many of them die. Only the gangsters, drug traffickers and other criminals benefit from the chaos and conflict at the border. By preventing the employment of foreigners unless they come here legally, or become legal as I have recommended, the non-criminal element is removed from the border and we can more easily concentrate on catching the real criminals. Security would be improved.

I am also appalled at the idea of a guest-worker program. We essentially tell foreigners:

We'd rather do without you, but if you want to work for peanuts, we have a temporary job for you. While you are here, you will be treated as dirt. When we do not need you we will ship you back home.

It's wrong to have a guest-worker program. It's right to use only legal residents as employees. Reducing the number of undocumented would help a great deal in returning America to its ideals of fairness and openness.

Posted by Paul Siegel at April 10, 2007 6:49 PM
Comments
Comment #215949

Sounds like a sound plan to me Paul.

Posted by: gergle at April 10, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #215953

Yes, indeed. That’s why it will never pass. It makes too much sense and steps on some very tender toes. This plan, if passed, would solve a whole lot of problems and reduce to practically zero the number of illegal immigrants. This would deprive the advocates of a soapbox and businesses who hire illegals for peanuts their reason for existence. Never happen, but we can dream.

Posted by: John Back at April 10, 2007 7:38 PM
Comment #215954

Sure reward illegals for being here illegally. That way they’ll vote Democrat.
The only thing amnesty does is invite more illegals into the country. Do ya want to reward them later?
The solution to the problem is very simple.
1. Secure our borders.
2. Deport ALL illegals as soon as they’re caught.
3. Give repeat illegals 20 years of very hard labor. Then deport them again.
4. Give employers that knowingly hire illegals 20 years. Revoke their business license and fine the company every last cent it has.
5. Give anyone that harbors illegals 20 years. Confiscate everything they own.
6. Shoot ALL coyotes on site.
7. Sit back and watch the flow of illegals dwindle to a trickle.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 10, 2007 8:05 PM
Comment #215957

You have to come down hard on both the employers and the illegals.

If you only go after the employers, they have the deeper pockets and the expensive lawyers who can tie up even a single case in courts forever. They simply insist that they were duped, that they thought they were hiring legals—no matter how unbelievable it seems. Even if they eventually lose, it’s a massively expensive and inefficent way to go about it. We’re talking billions here to go after them, and with no guarantee of enough success to even make a dent in the problem if that’s the only approach.

It may sound pitiless, but the illegals themselves are relatively easy pickings for the justice system. Round em’ up, give them a brief hearing, deport them and then inistitute draconian border-enforcement measures.

A two-pronged approach aimed at supply and demand is needed. Just one method isn’t going to work.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 10, 2007 8:55 PM
Comment #215965

Paul I agree that the go home and pay to come back law is ridiculous. That what happens when our lawmakers reality is so much different than most of the people of this country.I also agree with preventing the employment of the illegals. However, amnesty would just open the floodgates even wider that been proven as amnesty was tried by Reagan and look where we are at today.
So what do we do? Well I think while the people of Mexico and points south may be our friends I dont believe their government is. I believe we should round up the illegals , train them to fight, arm them and send them back to economically democratize their countries. If its good enough for Iraq its good enough for our neighbors. Then they can choose to come bcak to this country legally in return for their service. Sort of a new deal deal. But thats just my opinion.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 10, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #215969

Paul,

I think you make some good points. I too am angered by the hard-hearted attitudes toward illegals that is often portrayed by those vehemently opposed to illegal immigration.

I do take issue with a couple of your statements, though.

First, I think that it is a mistake to believe that their is a fully articulate stance on immigration reform by either party. Rather I think that the commonality in stances is more likely to be geographically based than party based.

Second, we alreay have a “guest worker” program which is legal and used everyday. It is the H1b Visa program. The only difference between this program and the “guest worker” program envisioned by Bush is that it specifically targets skilled workers.

Third, the $10,000 mark is not unreasonable for semi-skilled and skilled laborers that have the potential to make over $30,000/ year. When the comparable wages in their home country are less than $10,000 for the same job, they have the ability to potentially double or better their income. Families and villages will work together to fund these ventures. Employers will also fund the initial cost either as a “perk” of employment or as a loan to be paid back. Many employers use such methods now for the similar costs associated with the moving from an H1b to a permanent visa.

Fourth, the $3,500 is even more of a drop in the bucket. Even if the worker only makes $25,000 per year. It is a small investment to make several times what they could make in their home country.

Finally, it should be remembered that the guest worker program is not new. It was used extensively until the employment shortages of the 1970’s. With unemployment at or near historical lows, these immigrants are here and clearly a big part of the workforce. Removing them will be a problem.

I do agree that the best route to solving this problem is by expanding the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country. Legal immigration is a cornerstone of our country and an important differenator in the American epoch than previous world powers who reserved the rights of citizenship only to those born to it. The ability to reinvent ourselves periodically as a country based on the multiple experiences of all the various cultures that have immigrated is a definite strength that should be encouraged and broadened.

Posted by: Rob at April 10, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #215971
Where will they get the $3,500 to renew the visa?

The same place they get the $2,000 they pay coyotes every year. In fact, spread over three years, it’s actually cheaper, not to mention safer.

1. PREVENTING EMPLOYMENT OF UNDOCUMENTED

2. REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNDOCUMENTED

That’s kind of a big, Duh. Only the stupidest of Republican plans didn’t have those two central goals (Yes, I’m talking about you, James Sensenbrenner).

However, I’m stuck on the “not citizens, merely legal residents” part, Paul. That sounds like a second-class citizen. I’m more comfortable with these guys either learning English and paying the fines to become citizens or just applying as temporary labor and going home when they’re done.

In any case, a real immigration plan will have a boatload of money and resources for enforcement — and I haven’t heard anything like that yet.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 10, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #216010
Paul Siegel wrote: For instance, one plan would require illegal immigrants wishing to remain in the United States to return to their country of origin first and pay a $10,000 fine to obtain a three-year work visa. The visas would be renewable, at a cost of $3,500. Also, illegal immigrants who were in the U.S. before June 1, 2006, who paid various fees and fines and who met other criteria, including learning English, eventually could seek to become citizens. This is ridiculous.
That’s right. It is absolutely [expletive]ing ridiculous.
Paul Siegel wrote: Legislators are so intent on “punishing lawbreakers” and scared stiff of offering “amnesty,” that they can’t think straight.
It’s not just with respect to illegal immigration. Most (if not all) politicians in Congress can’t think straight about most (if not all) of the nation’s most pressing problems, as they STILL go ignored. And what good is a minimum wage when illegal aliens (cheap labor) are flooding across the borders by the thousands per day?
Paul Siegel wrote: Immigration reform should consist of 2 parts: . [1] PREVENTING EMPLOYMENT OF UNDOCUMENTED - If there is no prospect of employment nobody would risk his or her life to sneak into the U.S. The most efficient and reliable way to prevent the undocumented from gaining employment is to make hiring them a crime. We punish the informed employer, not the ignorant employee… . . [2] REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNDOCUMENTED - Having 12 million undocumented people in the country is not healthy. The easiest way to reduce this number is to enable each of them to become legal residents - not citizens, merely legal residents - in a given amount of time, let us say 3 years… First, we investigate them to see that they don’t have a criminal past. If they do, we deport them. If they are clean, they pay a fine for sneaking in, pass a simple American history test, and they become legal residents. The usual rules for gaining citizenship then apply. . Simple and straightforward. We take care of the entire problem.
[1] is OK and makes sense.

However, [2] is complicated and almost as ridiculous as the one Congressional plan described by the L.A. Times.

Paul Siegel wrote: I am also appalled at the idea of a guest-worker program.
That’s good.

Too bad most politicians in Congress don’t agree with you.

I think the over-complication, like much of what Congress does, is by design.
The more complicated it is, the more likely it is to fail, but give voters the impression that Congress is addressing the problem (even though it really isn’t).

The The SOLUTION is much more simple.
First, secure the borders.
Then, as you said above in [1], prosecute employers that illegally employ illegal aliens.
We do NOT need to round-up and arrest all 12 million illegal aliens.
That’s nonsense.
Stop employing them, and they will leave, and others will stop coming here.

But, most likely, Congress refuse to do much of anything about the illegal immigration problem, because:

  • Republican politicians want cheap labor

  • Democrat politicians want cheap labor

  • Democrat politicians want voters; they know if these illegal aliens are given amnesty, they believe most will most likely vote Democrat.

The bottom line is that Congress is truly despicable for continuing to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other, for ignoring this problem for decades, for the first 1986 amnesty that quadrupled the problem, for still refusing to do anything about it, and for failing the most fundamental duty of the federal governemnt … to protect our borders.

And what’s up with these Congress persons (mostly Democrat) that VOTED YES to allow illegal aliens to participate in Social Security (May 2006, BILL S2611):
Alaska: Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Arizona: John McCain (R-AZ)
Arkansas: Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR)
Arkansas: Mark Pryor (D-AR)
California: Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
California: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Colorado: Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Connecticut: Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Connecticut: Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Delaware: Joe Biden (D-DE)
Delaware: Tom Carper (D-DE)
Florida: Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Hawaii: Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Hawaii: Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Illinois: Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Illinois: Barack Obama (D-IL)
Indiana: Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Indiana: Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Iowa: Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Kansas: Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Louisiana: Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Maryland: Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Maryland: Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Massachusetts: Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Massachusetts: John Kerry (D-MA)
Michigan: Carl Levin (D-MI)
Michigan: Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Montana: Max Baucus (D-MT)
Nebraska: Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Nevada: Harry Reid (D-NV)
New Jersey: Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
New Jersey: Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
New Mexico: Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
New York: Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
New York: Charles Schumer (D-NY)
North Dakota: Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Ohio: Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Ohio: George Voinovich (R-OH)
Oregon: Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Pennsylvania: Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Rhode Island: Stephen Chafee (R-RI)
Rhode Island: Jack Reed (D-RI)
South Carolina: Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
South Dakota: Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Vermont: Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Vermont: Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Washington: Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Washington: Patty Murray (D-WA)
West Virginia: John Rockefeller (D-WV) no-vote
Wisconsin: Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Wisconsin: Herbert Kohl (D-WI)

  • Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers?
  • Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources, because 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ?
  • Where is the compassion for the illegal aliens being lured here for sub-minimum wage jobs, creating an under-paid, under-class (practically slavery) ?
  • Where is the outrage of the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?
  • Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens (29% of all incarcerated in U.S. prisons are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising. Such as Brian Jackson, a Dallas policeman was shot and killed by an illegal alien, Juan Lizcano on 13-Nov-2005. Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girfriend to threaten her. As the police pursued Lizcano after he fled the woman’s home, he shot Officer Brian Jackson, who died later in the hospital. Officer Jackson was remembered by his fellow police as someone who loved his job and always went the extra mile. In Denver, Colorado, an illegal deliberately ran over a Denver polceman in a school cross walk “breaking his legs along with severe internal injuries. This is not anectdotal. This tragedy has occurred over and over in many cities across the U.S. Where is the compassion for the victims of these crimes that should have never occurred?
  • Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”.
  • Where is the compassion for the 3.6 (or more) people murdered every day by an illegal alien (Source: GAO-05-646R based on a small study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period)
  • Where is the compassion for all of the people that do not want to see a repeat of 11-Sep-2001, which was perpetrated by several illegal aliens ?
  • Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers net losses of over $70 billion per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?
  • Where is your compasssion for the 2.3 million displaced American workers?
Posted by: d.a.n at April 11, 2007 9:51 AM
Comment #216011

I’m a Republican, and I *completely* agree with this post.

Posted by: Benedict at April 11, 2007 10:10 AM
Comment #216018

Paul,

I totally agree with you.

The Southern Poverty Law Center recently released a report about past and proposed “guest worker” programs. It’s lengthy, but a worthwhile read:

http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLCguestworker.pdf

Job #1 needs to be securing our borders. I’m one of the most liberal folks I know regarding the treatment of undocumented immigrants in the USA. I insist that whatever we do, we be always mindful that we’re dealing with human beings that are deserving of compassion, but nothing improves until we truly secure our borders.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 11, 2007 10:52 AM
Comment #216021
And what’s up with these Congress persons (mostly Democrat) that VOTED YES to allow illegal aliens to participate in Social Security

d.a.n, I looked up S2611 and couldn’t find any mention of giving illegal immigrants Social Security benefits. I call your bluff.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 11, 2007 11:10 AM
Comment #216040
American Pundit wrote: d.a.n, I looked up S. 2611 and couldn’t find any mention of giving illegal immigrants Social Security benefits. I call your bluff.
AP, whose bluffing? You weren’t very thorough, or perhaps blinded by partisan bias?

These Congress persons voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
___________________
Reference: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act; BILL S. 2611 ; vote number 2006-157 on May 25, 2006:
Voting YES allows illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

Voting YES would table (kill) the proposed amendment to prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits.

Voting NO supports that prohibition, while voting YES supports immigrants participating in Social Security.

Text of amendment is as follows:
To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.

Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
The Immigration Reform bill would allow people to qualify for social security based on work they did while they were illegally present in the US and illegally working in the US. People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security.
In some cases, illegal immigrants may have stolen an American citizen’s identity. They may have stolen an American’s social security number to fraudulently work. This amendment corrects this problem.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because:
Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. That is fairness. We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions. The amendment proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong.
____________________

You can see all the Congress persons that voted YES at ontheissues.org/Politicians_Name.htm#Immigration (e.g. ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm#Immigration)

Fortunately, the YES vote to allow illegal aliens to recieve Social Security was defeated.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 11, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #216041

“We punish the informed employer, not the ignorant employee”

Absolutely!
Its the “evil corporations” fault that I choose to eat their product.
Its the “evil corporations” fault that I choose to smoke their product.
Its the “evil corporations” fault that I choose burn their oil.
Its the “evil corporations” fault that I choose to work for them.
Its the “evil corporations” fault that I choose to break the law and illegaly come to the US.

No way we should punish all who break our laws. Couldn’t make people feel like victims and get their vote that way.

EVERYTHING is the “evil corporations” fault, not mine!

Posted by: kctim at April 11, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #216051

Employers that illegally employ illegal aliens do it for profit, by exploiting an underpaid, underclass, and the U.S. consumers do NOT realize a NET gain from it, due to the numerous burdens resulting in $70 billion in annual NET losses to U.S. tax payers:

  • the burden on education systems

  • burden on healthcare systems;

  • burden on hospital systems; 84 hospitals closed/closing in California;

  • burden on welfare systems; over 32% of illegal aliens collect welfare

  • burden on Medicaid system;

  • burden on Social Security and Medicare systems;

  • burden on border patrol systems; ever increasing numbers are needed;

  • burden on insurance systems; illegal aliens can/will not pay for damages they cause;

  • burden on law enforcement systems; costing California billions per year;

  • burden on prison systems; 29% of state and federal prisoners (Sep-2004) are illegal aliens;

  • 2.3 million displaced American workers; partly because half of all illegal aliens that don’t pay taxes, and greedy employers that don’t pay unemployment taxes, Social Security, Medicare taxes, etc.;

  • voter fraud; burden on voting systems;

It is a manifestation of unchecked greed.
Why have guest workers at all?
Why?
Because of cheap labor.
That’s why.
And why do so many politicians act like we’re in some sort of population race.
Ask China and India about all of the advantages of over-population.

Most illegal aliens come here for work. But that doesn’t mean we have to let them all in.
That’s lunacy, since the U.S. is already the 3rd most populous nation in the world.
And, how is importing the impoverished and less educated helping the nation?
Especially when illegal aliens, once they are here, are elibible for welfare and medicaid, education, and healthcare?

Politicians choosing to ignore this problem are essentially, despicably, pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.
The politicians are selling us out.

Most Americans want illegal immigration stopped now, but Congress continues to ignore them.
Most Americans are also opposed to amnesty and guest worker programs.
We already have an immigration system that already allows many hundreds of thousands per year to LEGALLY immigrate to the U.S.

For example, a Polling Station poll asked:
President Bush wants amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you agree with the President?
N = 9,174 Margin of Error +/- 1.0%
________ Yes ______ No _______ Undecided
Dem ____ 27.6% ____ 60.1% ____ 12.3%
Ind ____ 16.5% ____ 72.5% ____ 11.0%
Rep ____ 10.9% ____ 81.3% ____ 7.8%
Overall Percentages:
18.4% believe amnesty is a good idea.
71.2% do not believe amnesty is a good idea.
10.4% were undecided.

So, it’s pretty damn clear.
But not to Congress.
Just wait and see … Do-Nothing Congress is going to live up to its name, and, most likely, refuse to do much of anything about the illegal immigration problem, because:

  • Republican politicians want cheap labor

  • Democrat politicians want cheap labor

  • Neither Democrat or Republican politicians want to make tough decisions

  • Neither Democrat or Republican politicians want to tick off their big-money donors (corporations) that want cheap labor

  • Democrat politicians want voters; they know if these illegal aliens are given amnesty, they believe most will most likely vote Democrat

The voters don’t matter.
And why should the politicians pay any attention to the voters anyway, when those same voters, despite all their complaining, will continue to reward irresponsible incubment politicians, by repeatedly re-electing them. Conress won’t become responsible until the voters do too, and rewarding irresponsible politicians by repeatedly re-electing them ain’t gonna make politicians ANYTHING but more irresponsible.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 11, 2007 1:24 PM
Comment #216070

I’m with Kctim on this one. All the laws need to be enforced equally.

I feel sorry for the illegal immigrants too, but they broke the law. They need to be deported as they are found.

We can’t take care of our own, that should come first.

We have citizens in as dire straits as the illegals. They come first.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 11, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #216072

Paul, this is the one issue where Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot over. Fact is, the public sides more with Republicans policy on this than Democrats. The majority of Americans want secure borders. The majority of Americans don’t want illegal aliens to be given amnesty nor citizenship as a reward for breaking our laws.

The majority of Americans do recognize the need for a guest worker program that is enforceable and containable. Democrats would do well to compromise with Bush to some degree on this issue.

Secure the borders, provide enforceable guest worker program, and devise a plan for illegals currently in this country to register, and remain without potential for citizenship, or return to their country of origin and apply for expedited legal immigrant status. All in that order. No part of any plan can succeed without effective border security against further migration of illegal immigrants.

Anyone with a lick of logic in their head can readily see that. Begin there. But, Democrats are still trying to carry that albatross of rejecting enforceable border security, and that makes them weak on national defense, no matter how you cut it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 11, 2007 3:13 PM
Comment #216083

The problem with all of these solutions is that none of them deal with the reason that people come here illegally in the first place. First, they come here from Mexico because their government uses the United States as a safety valve for their poor and doesn’t care about their suffering. Second, they come here because US corporations that have moved in and taken over their economies and refuse to pay a living wage to their workers. Third, our government makes trade deals with countries that allow this to happen. We don’t require that workers producing goods to sell in the US are payed a living wage. Finally, we need stiff, real penalties for businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

This is a hard, long road to travel and there is not the political will to do so but it will solve the immigration problem as well as some of our other economic problems. It will stimulate balanced trade since the workers in other countries will acutally be able to afford to buy our goods. It will re-invigorate our manufacturing base since we will ba able to compete in the world marketplace since corporations will no longer be able to get away with paying people pennies an hour to slave in a sweatshop.

This is not without some pain to American consumers but there is no way to put a band-aid on this problem.

Guest worker programs, amnesty, law enforcement, and all the other proposed solutions do not deal with the problem holistically and while they may deal with the people that are here they do not deal with people who may come here in the future.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 11, 2007 4:20 PM
Comment #216089

Tom

The problem with all of these solutions is that none of them deal with the reason that people come here illegally in the first place.

Maybe it’s because none of us care why they’re breaking our laws. We just want it stopped.

First, they come here from Mexico because their government uses the United States as a safety valve for their poor….

That’s why we need to elect officials that won’t let that happen.

….. and doesn’t care about their suffering.

So lets invade Mexico now.

Second, they come here because US corporations that have moved in and taken over their economies and refuse to pay a living wage to their workers.

Funny, all I heard when Clinton was going to sign NAFTA was how US corporation would raise the standard of living in Mexico. Reckon maybe he and his supporters were lying? Gee, go figure!

Third, our government makes trade deals with countries that allow this to happen. We don’t require that workers producing goods to sell in the US are payed a living wage.

So now we’re supposed to tell other governments what to do?

Finally, we need stiff, real penalties for businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

Finally, something we do agree on. We also need to crack down hard on the illegals themselves.
Read my post #215954 April 10, 2007 08:05 PM.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 11, 2007 4:40 PM
Comment #216108

Paul
Comming from a largely agricultural part of a large agricultural state probably gives me a different outlook on a guest worker program. Farmers need the labor. Always have and always will.Latino migrants have been comming here for fifty years or so. They work the season and for the most part have returned home. This changed with increased border security. Now it is so difficult and dangerious to get across more stay. Unintended consequences again.Their families still need the money they can earn here and farmers need them.
Any guest worker program needs to be coyote free and provide the guest workers with the same rights as American workers,namely, the right to quit and look for a better job,the right to organize,unemployment insurance,SS, etc. Othewise the program will be used to undermine American and other immigrant workers. Any Bush designed plan will most likely aim to do just that. Beware.

Posted by: BillS at April 11, 2007 7:05 PM
Comment #216111

BillS,
You want to give illegal aliens, and guest workers Social Security and unemployment?
You’re not alone.
So do these congress persons, who wish to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

And you don’t think American workers (over 2.3 million) are already displaced by illegal aliens (cheap labor)?

Do you realize that once illegal aliens are given amnesty, they will no longer be cheap labor?
They will probably end up on welfare, since 32% of illegal aliens already receive welfare.
The federal law is strange.
It makes illegal trespass of our border illegal (just a misdemeanor the 1st time), but once the illegal alien is here, they are legally eligible for welfare, medicaid, education, healthcare, and other benefits paid for by U.S. tax payers.

Sure, you might think it’s the benevolent position to take, but what about the $70 billion in NET losses to American tax payers due to burdens by illegal aliens?
We can pick a lot of lettuce for $70 billion per year.
Even if the price of food went up, it still would not exceed the current $70 billion of annual net losses to American tax payers.

Where is the compassion for your fellow Americans?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 11, 2007 7:35 PM
Comment #216116

d.a.n.
I want to give WORKERS SS, unemployment benefits,overtime pay etc. even if they are from Mars. Its not compassion I am talking about,but fairness. If you pay into SS you should get something back.
Sometimes we agree but on this topic we are far apart. I work with latinos every day. I do not ask if they are here with or without papers. They are mostly good people and Lord knows they work hard. The figures you selectively cite would make it seem they are all monsters. You really should get out more. There are some wonderful people in the world.

Posted by: BillS at April 11, 2007 8:22 PM
Comment #216121

Tom Snediker, Your absolutely correct the government of Mexico is the problem. So are the Free Trade agreements. Both of these issues need to be included in any immigration reform. As we fight for a level playing field in this Country we should invest in the Mexican people and assist them in fighting the battle in their Country.

Ron, Just because Clinton and the republican congress did it dont make it right.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 11, 2007 9:09 PM
Comment #216159
BillS wrote: d.a.n. I want to give WORKERS SS, unemployment benefits,overtime pay etc. even if they are from Mars. Its not compassion I am talking about,but fairness. If you pay into SS you should get something back.
Fairness?

They are here I_L_L_E_G_A_L_L_Y.

Compassion?

  • Where’s the compassion for the 2.3 million displaced American workers?

  • Where’s the compassion for the burdens shifted to U.S. taxpayers by greedy employers of illegal aliens?

  • Where’s the compassion for U.S. citizens that can get healthcare because illegal aliens have overrun our hospitals (84 hospitals closed in California)?

  • Where’s the compassion for the disease spread to U.S. citizens (One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”)?

  • Where’s the compassion for the police officers and people murdered by illegal aliens and the increased crime rates?

  • Where’s the compassion for the people killed by drunk driving illegal aliens?

  • Where’s the compassion for the U.S. citizens and tax payers whose welfare is abused by illegal aliens (32% of illegal aliens receive welfare)?

How do you overlook all of that?
Perhaps emotion is clouding your ability to see the facts?

Illegal aliens are abusing many of our systems and costing tax payers over $70 billion in NET losses per year.

Most are just looking for work, but not all.
32% of all illegal aliens receive welfare.
29% of all incarcerated nationwide are illegal aliens.
Crime is hihger.
95% of homicide arrest warrants in L.A. are for illegal aliens.
A GAO Report of a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period (only a small portion of all incarcerated illegal aliens in TX, CA, and AZ only) committed 105 murders per year (0.288 homicides per day). If you extrapolate based on 29% of 2.2 million incarcerated nationwide, that’s 11.4 homicides per day!

Even if it was ONLY 1 homicide per day, it is 1 too many.

BillS wrote: You really should get out more. There are some wonderful people in the world.
BillS, I own land in TX, and New Mexico. I’m well aware of the burdens and problems resulting from illegal immigration.
BillS wrote: They are mostly good people and Lord knows they work hard. The figures you selectively cite would make it seem they are all monsters.
Not true.

I say all the time that most are looking for work.

Also, I’m not for arresting and deporting 12 million illegal aliens.
It’s not necessary.
Just stop hiring them illegally, letting them use our schools, hospitals, welfare, healtchare, Medicare, and vote in our elections, and they will go home. The ones in prisons can be deported immediately.

Still, I don’t hate the illegal alien.

I have FAR more disgust of our politicians that are despicably pitting U.S. citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

So, we should just let everyone come here?
When do we close the gates?
After we have an over-population problem like China or India?

Would you allow an uninvited stranger to come into your home, eat your food, make themselves at home, settle in, and perhaps invite a few friends ?

No? Of course not. Then why would you allow uninvited strangers to illegally enter your community to use your schools, hospitals, E.R.s, jobs, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, drive about with no drivers’ license or auto-insurance, and fraudulently vote in your elections?

And why do we need cheap labor?
Who benefits from that?
The greedy employers of illegal aliens.
Not the tax payers, who are losing over $70 billion per year in NET losses per year (and that is after excluding the taxes that only half of all illegal aliens pay, sales taxes, and the value of their work).

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 1:39 AM
Comment #216188

d.a.n

good stuff…

Posted by: cliff at April 12, 2007 10:35 AM
Comment #216205

Thanks Cliff.

I think some people take the side of the illegal alien mostly because it feels like the “nice” and “benevolent” thing to do.
They overlook or are unaware that illegal aliens are abusing many of our systems, overruning our borders, hospitals, healthcare systems, prisons, welfare systems, Medicaid, law enforcement, even voting in our elections, displacing millions of American workers, and bringing disease and increased crime rates with them.

Still, that’s no reason to hate illegal aliens.
Still, that’s no reason to terribly fault people for wanting to come here.
But it still does not justify it.

Just like I would not allow just anyone to come into my home, eat my food, use my things, make themselves at home, or even invite a few friends.

But that is exactly what illegal aliens are doing.
They are stealing and abusing U.S. tax payers’ resources.

And our politicians are helping them to do it!
But voters keep rewarding politicians for it by repeatedly re-electing them.
It makes no sense at all.
Americans will be their undoing, and it may be too late before they realize they are victims of their own complacency, apathy, blind party loyalty, and wallowing in the circular, divisive, distracting partisan warfare.

Many of our politicians are despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other!

Many of our politicians also have some strange vision of a nation that will be better with MORE people. It’s lunacy. Anyone that doesn’t believe it ought to ask China and India about all the advantages of over-population.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 11:52 AM
Comment #216237

Ron Brown you said:
1. Maybe it’s because none of us care why they’re breaking our laws. We just want it stopped.
A. If you don’t care why they are here you will be able to do absolutly nothing about fixing the problem. Solving problems involves understanding them. Writing 11 million tickets, or spending billions finding and evicting all the illegal immigrants will not solve the problem. Even building a wall will not stop the flow of people here - doing something to eliminate people’s need to come here will.

2. That’s why we need to elect officials that won’t let that happen.
A. Yes we do, people who understand and care about fixing problems for real not pandering to racism and xenophobia.

3. So lets invade Mexico now.
A. Huh? Nice plan that will work. We already invaded Mexico in 1848 and stole about half of their country.

4. Funny, all I heard when Clinton was going to sign NAFTA was how US corporation would raise the standard of living in Mexico. Reckon maybe he and his supporters were lying? Gee, go figure!
A. I know you guys can’t say anyting without mentioning Clinton - he was wrong on this issue and so are all the rest that supported NAFTA.


5. So now we’re supposed to tell other governments what to do?
A. No we are supposed to make trade deals that make sense. They can do whatever they want to their own people just not when those people are selling something in this country.

6. Finally, we need stiff, real penalties for businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Finally, something we do agree on. We also need to crack down hard on the illegals themselves.
A. Hey, we agree on something!

Our southern border is incredibly long and we haven’t been able to stop smuggling on the border since we were a British colony. It would be much cheaper and more effective to work on solving the reasons people come here than building the Great Wall of America. It would help our manufacturing base and national security as a byproduct.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 12, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #216268

Tom Snediker,

I agree 100% that we have to stop the illegal employment, and numerous magnets that lure the illegal aliens here.
We need to prosecute the employers that hire them.
However, I think we can secure the borders.
There are solutions for that which cost FAR less than the annual $70 billion in net losses due to the numerous burdens and problems caused by illegal aliens. The other thing is, it wouldn’t be a wall. It would be two fences and a road.

The U.S. can and should secure the borders and coasts, because national security and defense is the basic purpose of the military.
It is a joke to pretend Homeland Security is important when borders and sea-ports are wide-open.
It is a joke to talk about minimum wages when the government refuses to enforce existing laws to stop illegal immigration.

Securing the borders, the right of any sovereign nation, is not isolationism or xenophobia. It is simply national security and defense.

Also, it can be done quite easily at a cost of about $8 billion initially, and about $10 billion annually for over 153,000 border patrol (three shifts of 51,000). $10 billion per year is minuscule compared to the $70 billion in annual net losses due to illegal aliens burdening our education, healthcare, hospital, ER, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, border patrol, insurance, law enforcement, prison, and voting systems.

The cost, at $10 billion per year is less than the $10.5 billion in annual losses for California alone, due to illegal aliens.
$10 billion per year is far less than the $27.3 billion for pork-barrel for year 2005.

IT CAN BE DONE:

The U.S. could easily secure the borders with resources we already have. We could simply position 153,000 border patrol persons (a mere 5.9% of the total of 2.6 million of our active military, guard, and reserves) along the borders where they could be more effective toward the goal of national security and defense.

The U.S./Canada border (about 4000 miles) and the U.S./Mexico border (about 2,000 miles) could both (about 6,000 miles combined) be secured with a fence and 3000 posts (fixed or mobile; each spaced about 2 miles apart; denser in some areas than others) with a maximum of 51 border patrol persons per post (17 persons per 8 hour shift per post). That is one patrol person about every 621 feet (i.e. about the length of two football fields), or 8 patrol persons per mile.

All that can be done for $10 billion per year.
Even if it was double or triple that, it would be far less than the current $70 billion per year in net losses. And those net losses include all taxes paid by half of all illegal aliens, and the value of their work. But it doesn’t even include the untold cost of crime, disease, and 2.3 million displaced American workers.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 8:49 PM
Comment #216305
Democrats would do well to compromise with Bush to some degree on this issue.

David, are you joking? Democrats already voted for the Republican immigration reform bill that President Bush favored. It was killed by House Republicans, not Democrats.

AP, whose bluffing? You weren’t very thorough, or perhaps blinded by partisan bias?

d.a.n, I went back and looked, but still didn’t see it. Perhaps you can point out the specific section of the bill that gives illegal immigrants Social Security benefits.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2007 10:18 PM
Comment #216352
American Pundit wrote: d.a.n, I went back and looked, but still didn’t see it. Perhaps you can point out the specific section of the bill that gives illegal immigrants Social Security benefits.

The text of the BILL S.2611, Amendment 3895 is
here.

And here,

Those that voted YEA did so to kill the S.2611, Amendment # 3985 because it prohibitied Social Security for illegal aliens.

More …

Want more information about it … just google “S.2611 AMENDMENT 3985”.
It was a very controversial Amendment which pissed of a lot of Americans, and most of the Congress persons that voted YEA were Democrats.

Did you want fries with that?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 13, 2007 1:08 AM
Comment #216353

The SOLUTION

Posted by: d.a.n at April 13, 2007 1:10 AM
Comment #216403

d.a.n, I had no trouble finding the text of the bill. I just didn’t see anything in there that looked like it gave Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants.

I know you provided links to commentary on the bill from organizations like “The Eagle Forum” and the “American Conservative Union”, but none of the literature you’re linking shows where in the bill it guarantees Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants.

I’m beginning to suspect you don’t know anything about the bill other than what you read from these radical lobbyist groups.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 13, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #216436
American Pundit wrote: d.a.n, I had no trouble finding the text of the bill. I just didn’t see anything in there that looked like it gave Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants.
No?

Oooh…..that’s because you FIRST need to take off your partisan blinders.

AP, Are you really that dense?
Here is the exact text of BILL S.2611, Amendment 3985 from www.senate.gov, which appears on this page:


Text of amendment for BILL S. 2611, Amendment S.AMDT.3985 is as follows:
To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.

The VOTE was a YEA to kill it, or a NAY to support the prohibition of Social Security benefits for illegal aliens.
The VOTE of NAY is to prohibit Social Social for illegal aliens.

I don’t know how much clearer it can be.
You’re not doing yourself any favors by denying something that has been well known for almost a year (since MAY-2006).

American Pundit wrote: I know you provided links to commentary on the bill from organizations like “The Eagle Forum” and the “American Conservative Union”, but none of the literature you’re linking shows where in the bill it guarantees Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants.
Like I said, you have to take off your partisan blinders first.

Then you will be able to see things much clearer.

American Pundit wrote: I’m beginning to suspect you don’t know anything about the bill other than what you read from these radical lobbyist groups.
I’m beggining to suspect you can’t read.

You make it very clear that you are unable to see around your partisan blinders.

So, the www.senate.gov site is a radical lobbyist group?
Read it, and explain how that is a radical lobbyist group.

Radical lobbyist groups?
American Pundit, you are destroying what (if any) credibility you had.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 13, 2007 4:06 PM
Comment #216522

d.a.n, I checked up on that Amendment 3985. It turns out that it was voted down because it was superfluous. US law already forbids illegal aliens from receiving Social Security benefits.

There’s no need for another law saying the same thing.

That vote was nothing but a political stunt by Republicans trying to get people like you riled up.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 14, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #216540
American Puntit BTW, d.a.n, since you brought it up, here’s my response from the other column to your errenous belief that some in Congress voted to give illegal immigrants Social Security benefits: d.a.n, I checked up on that Amendment 3985. It turns out that it was voted down because it was superfluous. US law already forbids illegal aliens from receiving Social Security benefits. There’s no need for another law saying the same thing.
Nonsense.

Clever, but pure nonsense.
The major flaw is this:
If it was superflous, why not vote NAY to make it perfectly clear, rather than vote YEA to table (kill) it?

And where does it say it was superfluous?
It’s an immigration reform bill, with many changes, potential changes to Social Security, Medicare, etc.
So nothing can be left to chance.
Also, there were studies that were investigating the impact of giving Social Security to illegal aliens.
You say it is already illegal.
Then how is it that 32% of illegal aliens already receive welfare, receive Medicaid, use our schools, hospitals, ERs, drive around with fake driver’s licenses, and even vote in our elections.
They are here illegally already.

So it was not a mere stunt.
It is necessary to make it perfectly clear what is legal and what is not, and Amendment 3985 made it perfectly clear that illegal aliens could NOT receive Social Security later as a result of having worked in the U.S. illegally.
So, your claim makes no sense.
Besides, you know damn well most Democrats want to make it easy on illegal aliens … because they see more votes.

Also, if it didn’t matter, and it was truly superflous, then why not just vote against tabling the prohibition?
There are lots of laws that already exist that are not being enforced.

American Puntit That vote was nothing but a political stunt by Republicans trying to get people like you riled up.
Of course you’d say it was some stunt or conspiracy.

I expected that.
If figures.
The Dems can do no wrong (and the Repubs are no better).
The blind partisanship knows no bounds.
Keep wallowing in it and see what it gets YOUR party in 2008.
I have a feeling more voters are starting to get fed up with this new 110th Congress.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2007 1:43 AM
Comment #216626

d.a.n, I can’t make you acknowledge truth. I can only present it and hope that others will be less narrow minded.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 14, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #216631
American Pundit wrote: d.a.n , I can’t make you acknowledge truth. I can only present it and hope that others will be less narrow minded.
American Pundit,

The brevity of your response is indicative of the fact that you have been disproven, and refuse to admit it.

You can not disprove BILL S.2611 Amendment #3985, so you resort to this lame tactic.

Most will see it for what it is.

You challenged me; and when your were thorougly trounced, you still are unable to admit you were wrong. Keep it up. I’ll be there.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #216681
The brevity of your response is indicative of the fact that you have been disproven, and refuse to admit it.

Not at all.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 15, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #216682
American Pudnit wrote: d.a.n, I’m not that clever.
You said it; not me.
American Pudnit wrote: I just googled the amendment [S.2611 Amendment 3985] and read up on it. It didn’t take any special skill on my part. You can read my response in the appropriate thread.

American Puntit,
You provided NO evidence at all.
That’s because you have none.
This is all you wrote.

d.a.n, I can’t make you acknowledge truth. I can only present it and hope that others will be less narrow minded.
You call that proof ?
Talk about narrowminded.
Please show us specifically how BILL S.2611 Amendment #3985 is superfluous?
And, if it was superfluous, why vote YEA to table (kill) it?
Why not vote NAY to not table (kill) it?
Where is this stuff you googled?
Please show us.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 15, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #216698

American Pudnit,

Where’s your proof.
You said you googled BILL S.2611 Amendment #3985 and proved to yourself only that it was superfluous.
Please show us why S.2611 Amendment #3985 was superfluous.
Show us why it was tabled (killed).
Interesting that 39 of 51 Senators that killed it were Democrats.

American Pundit wrote: d.a.n, I looked up S2611 and couldn’t find any mention of giving illegal immigrants Social Security benefits. I call your bluff.
American Puntit wrote: d.a.n, I went back and looked, but still didn’t see it. Perhaps you can point out the specific section of the bill that gives illegal immigrants Social Security benefits.
American Puntit wrote: I’m beginning to suspect you don’t know anything about the bill other than what you read from these radical lobbyist groups.
American Puntit wrote: d.a.n, I checked up on that Amendment 3985. It turns out that it was voted down because it was superfluous. US law already forbids illegal aliens from receiving Social Security benefits. There’s no need for another law saying the same thing.
American Pundit,

That was NOT what the BILL addressed only.
The BILL also addressed Social Security for illegal aliens that may later become citizens and whether they would be eligible for Social Security benefits prior to becoming a citizen. There were studies being conducted to see what the impact would be on the Social Security system.

American Puntit wrote: That vote was nothing but a political stunt by Republicans trying to get people like you riled up.
Nonsense.

Amendment #3985 of Bill S.2611 was NOT wasn’t superfluous.
That was not why Amendment # 3985 was killed.
The BILL dealt specifically with whether illegal aliens could collect Social Security while working in the U.S. illegally IF their status was changed later (i.e. given amnesty or legally immigrated).
Just saying it is superfluous is false.
Here’s the BILL S.2611, the facts, the analysis, links to all that voted on it, and other sources.

American Puntit wrote: d.a.n, I can’t make you acknowledge truth. I can only present it and hope that others will be less narrow minded.
American Puntit wrote: Are you asking me for proof that it’s illegal for illegal immigrants to collect Social Security benefits? Do you think illegal immigrants are collecting Social Security right now?
Yes. Some do. Not only that, 32% of all illegal aliens receive welfare and/or medicaid.
American Puntit wrote: C’mon, d.a.n. Are you also in favor of a new law making it illegal to run a red light? It’s already illegal. Why bother?
You don’t want to bother because you are wrong.

I’d of let it drop, except that you wrote:

American Pundit wrote:
d.a.n, I looked up S2611 and couldn’t find any mention of giving illegal immigrants Social Security benefits. I call your bluff.
and
American Puntit wrote:
I’m beginning to suspect you don’t know anything about the bill other than what you read from these radical lobbyist groups.

The fact is, you don’t know what you’re talking about and you are now avoiding the issue with insults …

If you really had the proof you allege, you would have shown the so-called results of your google search.
So, where is your evidence?
Please show us what you said you googled which proved that Amendment #3985 of BILL S.2611 was superfluous and/or that was the reason it was killed?

Admit it. You’re wrong.
Here’s the urban legend write-up at snopes.com that states it is true and why:
… it boils down to this: While the list of who voted which way is accurate, what was being voted on was a motion to table (that is, stick in a closet in hopes that it will never be seen again) a motion to deny former illeagl aliens credit for the Social Security payments they made while in the U.S. illegally. Last Updated: 4 June 2006

Posted by: d.a.n at April 15, 2007 3:23 PM
Comment #216712
And, if it was superfluous, why vote YEA to table (kill) it?

Eh? Just so we’re all on the same page, ‘superfluous’ means it’s an unnecessary duplicate of a law already on the books.

It’s already illegal for illegal immigrants to collect Social Security. Another law saying the same thing is superfluous — an unnecessary duplicate.

Amendment 3985 was rightly killed. It’s meaningless. It’s unnecessary. It’s superfluous.

And really, d.a.n, I have very little patience for nonsense. I’ve told you whay it was killed. End of story.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 15, 2007 5:49 PM
Comment #216720

American Pudnit,
Amendment 3985 of BILL S.2611 was not superfluous.
You made that up, rather than admit you are wrong.

It was not superfluous because there is no law that states illegal aliens that become citizens later can not collect social security for those earnings while working in the U.S. illegally.

That is why Amendment #3985 was necessary. But
the Dems didn’t like that , so they killed the Amendment (39 Democrats of 51 Senators that voted to kill it).

You said you googled it to find out that it was superfluous.
I looked and found nothing no where that proved it was superfluous.
So, show us if it is true.
Where’s you proof?
You can’t because you have none.

American Pundit wrote: And really, d.a.n, I have very little patience for nonsense. I’ve told you whay it was killed. End of story.
Nonsense.

If you could prove it you would.
But you won’t even show your google findings.
Figures.
How revealing.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 15, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #366243

If they are in the U.S. illegally, they should NOT be voting. Period.

Posted by: clintwood east at May 20, 2013 2:55 PM
Post a comment