Eisenhower solved illegal immigration

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

RE: Eisenhower solved illegal immigration

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'm gonna let this topic drop for a while... after the following tirade...

There is NOTHING good I can say about conservatives right now.

I question their patriotism.

I cannot see how the status quo is good for our country. I cannot see how even a little improvement is worse than no improvements.

I question their ability to think rationally. I think they are easily manipulated by demogogues who have "scared" them into opposition and the use of easy slogans like "amnesty".

Whether or not they acknowledge it, they've just played right into those who want the status quo--and that's the ONLY message that has been sent... The federal government has no better incentive to "enforce" the law, they'll simply claim they're doing the best they can with the support they're getting. It already acts as it can with the funds and means it has. Now it has no further support. Appoint all the oversight committees you want, it won't fix the problem. We need to work together on this issue.

The problem is that both sides want credit for "fixing" the issue, so what better thing to do than let the problem get worse and worse, until one side has a clear majority? Meanwhile they are allowed to get away with the status quo--now there's compassion!! Great solutions, guys!

President Bush is correct in condemning congress in being unwilling and unable to address tough issues. It's individual members are too easily scared by the fear of being unelectable, by the threats made by conservative and liberal extremists who both seem to be cut from the same cloth.

And so you have nothing. You have NOTHING. YOu have accomplished nothing.

You have done nothing to change the status quo, so it will go on and on and on. All the best ideas that could've been, won't be.

The compromise bill at least attempted to provide better definition for and funding for an assortment of problems, that now must go as they've always been...

No better workplace verfication or enforcement.

Not enough funding for the fence or garantees it'll get done.

No funding for more immigration agents and border patrol.

More families living in the shadows, a permanent underclass.

More crime and gangs intermingled with decent folk and no distinction or attempt to acknowledge them.

No better incentive for foreigners to learn the common language of english.

No better funding for the expediting foreign criminals, and coyotes.

No better attempt to seperate the criminal elements from the elements we actually need in our country, because we're running a population deficit.

Take a bow conservatives, you've really done yourselves a great disservice.

...tirade off...

You can rationalize your postion all you want, but when the rubber meets the road, you've done NOTHING. It's easy to find fault. I could easily jump on your little bandwagons of idealism, but sorry... I refuse to do so at the expense of 12 million people, but hey, for you, it's probably just collateral damage in your little war of high-minded idealism.

...tirade really off... :)

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 11:50, 2007-06-29

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

When the government shows that it is willing to enforce the laws we have now

They're bad laws. Why should the pre-qualifier for adopting a new law be enforcement of an old bad one? That doesn't make sense to me.

Roper, are you suggesting we should just allow ourselves to be overrun, our culture and demography changed, because our ancestors did it to the native americans?

1. We aren't being overrun any more than in past periods of strong immigration. We grew stronger as a nation. The same is true now. We just need to use American ingenuity to work through the challenges instead of blaming systemic problems (such as healthcare) on immigrants.

2. Our culture and demography will change whether it's done legally or illegally. All of the reputable forecasts for demographic change predict that the majority population of the US will be of Latino heritage in 30-40 years. Immigration is not the driving factor. Birth rate is--trends show that Caucasians are having fewer children, African Americans and Asians are stable, and Latinos maintain their cultural traditions of large families. Personally, I like a lot of things about Latino culture better than American culture's addiction to money, violence, and sex. I'm happy to welcome Latinos into our culture and happy to adapt to their influence.

3. Yay for Ray!

-- Edited by Roper at 12:31, 2007-06-29

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

May I just say... ahem... whew! That was some tirade there Ray...

Ray, in truth, did you honestly expect even 1% of the "promised" outcomes of the bill to actually ever be realized?

I can honestly say I didn't. For crying out loud, Ted Kennedy and John McCain were some of the sponsers... They can now use this as clout for their "integrity" and fodder against those who didn't agree to it.

Maybe now you can understand the frustration the citizenry has concerning this issue. They have been complaining for decades about the problems, and then suddenly it becomes an urgent issue at the federal level... Bush's original plan was fairly pragmatic even if it seemed fairly pie in the sky universal solution... until it hit the fan of partisan politics and the political NIMBYs of Congress.

As said, there has never been a desire from Congress' standpoint to really reform the process or to enforce that which exists. It is all window dressing. It is all for political gain.

Please try and seperate the politicians from those citizens who are conservative in political thought.

ETA... actually, I hate to say it, but Ray's tirade there reminded me of a tirade I heard in the book store the next morning after Bush was elected or re-elected as president. I couldn't believe the level of absolute, unmitigated vitriol and emotional hate-filled anger coming out of someone who appeared to be an intelligent professional in a public place while on their cell phone as I heard. I thought that sort of stuff in real life was reserved for abuse of LDS missionaries... Beyond the TV political talk show debates, I didn't think anyone would really get so worked up about politics. And, it reminded me why I approach politics by and large with a sense of "moderation in all things."

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 12:40, 2007-06-29

arbilad · Head Chef

I'll let most of it go for now, since I think I've covered all the responses to Ray's and Roper's points at least once, but I did want to stress one thing: Roper, you're operating off of a fallacy. I have nothing against hispanics or hispanic culture. I like hispanic culture. I like tamales made by real mexicans. I like pinatas. I like real mexican food (not just the Qdoba's style "mexican" food, which I also like). I like some mexican music. I really admire and respect their strong family traditions, and their generally strong religious leanings. There is a lot to admire in hispanic cultures. My objection is not to hispanic culture, or hispanic people, or any of that. My objection is entirely and solely related to people entering the country illegally with no health checks, no security checks, really no checks at all in any form. This impacts our economy, security, and health. If we brought these people in legally, they'd be great workers. Hispanics frequently have a very good work ethic. They'd benefit, we'd benefit, and everyone would be happier. I fail to see where the problem is in wanting control over our borders.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

I think, Ray, that based on your tirade, you're working on a lot of emotion and it has you heated. So I'll excuse it.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Ted Kennedy and John McCain - Are these two the antichrists?

As for the "vitriol"... I clearly marked my remarks as a tirade. I am just so sick of this idea that we cannot work out a solution, but have to be right 100% or the whole deal is off. It's the same sort of crap that the Dems played on the Supreme Court Justices, only it's on an issue not half as important to us... this has not been a core issue for most conservatives, or the country for a long time... This has only become a core issue, due to demogogues.

You can continue to take your ball and go home sulking to your mommy where she'll feed you rich chocolate ovaltine and kiss your boo-boos better, or you can come to the table and try to fix the problem. Some of us are ready to deal for a real-world solution and work out the problem incrementally, rather than having the suicidal attitude of all or nothing.

--Ray

PS. I think the above was also reminiscient of a tirade... apparently, it's tirade friday...

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

arbilad wrote:
This impacts our economy, security, and health. If we brought these people in legally, they'd be great workers. Hispanics frequently have a very good work ethic. They'd benefit, we'd benefit, and everyone would be happier.

And our current laws have given us none of what you claim you want.

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got.

The conservatives who lobbied to defeat the bill ensured that we will be back to what we've always done. It's irrational to think we'll get any different result this time around.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

So let's take the issue on, one element at at time, and not try to solve the whole thing in one huge mess of a "comprehensive reform." Let's start with enforcement. Let Washington show us they are trustworthy by enforcing the border. When that is done, I hope they fix the mess that is the legal immigration system. The people who are trying to play by the rules and become citizens the right way deserve that. Then, I would be happy to talk about solving the issue of the 12-20 million illegals. But this bill was an attempt to force the American public to swallow something that it decidedly did not want. It was a blatant example of our political elites thinking they knew better than the citizens, and trying to pull one over on us with their backroom deals and "compromises".

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

But immediate and comprehensive reform was what everyone demanded.

I agree. One issue at a time is a better approach. But I think border enforcement is the wrong place to start. I think we should start by working with first Mexico to greatly expand and legitimize legal immigration. Improving the process needs to start in the country of origin.

-- Edited by Roper at 13:30, 2007-06-29

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

You're entitled to your opinion Shiz... I think the bill was a fine idea, that got picked apart by vultures who care more about ratings, reelections, purist soapboxes, political correctness, and sensationalism, than about what's the right thing to do to move forward.

Maybe it's time for Hillary to win the Whitehouse, cuz the conservatives continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Maybe that would unite conservatives, and they'd give up on their all-or-nothing thinking--the type of hubris that supposes that just because they ONCE had a majority they should continue to think they're in power.

I honestly doubt that the congress has the ability to actually fix any serious problems anymore, and as a result... it's too worried about how to remain off the radar of the demogogues. Instead we'll only do more internal investigations, uncover and create more scandals, hype up pretended disasters, point fingers, spend lots and lots of money, and anything other than actually help the country fix the problems of the real future.

So just keep on doing nothing... put it off for another couple years... That'll definitely fix things.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Roper wrote:

But immediate and comprehensive reform was what everyone demanded.

That is what we were told by politicians and the media that we wanted. And, I think a lot of people bought into it, no doubt, because of the terrorist infiltration threat of having porous borders. A similar ploy could have easily been put behind paranoid reaction of potential of terrorist threat from container ship harbors and having stricter enforcement of foreign imports to the nation not containing harmful chemicals that will kill our pets or substandard food stuffs or products for human consumption...

I agree from a very pragmatic standpoint that we need to start things off at ground level. The question becomes, what is the ground level task or tasks that need to be in place first. But, roper, the solution to the problem is not just to indicate there is a problem (which from your post looked just like a restatement of the problem needing the solution).

Hey, Ray, sorry if you took anything I was saying as personal... your post just reminded me of that experience I mentioned. Kennedy and McCain are not the antichrists... they just have a reputation for well, being big as far as being politicians with a lot of capacity for creation of warm CO2, taking credit where none is due or deserved, and doing / saying whatever they need to continue their occupational career.

oh, and yay for Tirade Friday! I propose we designate every second Friday of every month's fourth week as Bountiful Tirade Friday! biggrin

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

I am so glad to see that y'all are playing so nice while I have been TRYING to learn my new job...

Is it time to say "hang ALL the politicians" yet??

arbilad · Head Chef

Not to disturb a hornet's nest, but here's a joke I read. I think that you can appreciate it whatever side of the debate you're on, whether you want the illegals here or whether you would rather they come over legally.

Q: Why doesn't Mexico compete in the olympic triathlon?
A: Because everyone who can run, bike, or swim is in the US.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:
But, roper, the solution to the problem is not just to indicate there is a problem (which from your post looked just like a restatement of the problem needing the solution).

Okay, so I'll try to be a little more specific.

In Latin American countries, the start of the immigration process is broken and corrupt. Unless you have connections in government, or a whole lotta cash to pay bribes, ain't no way your gettin across the border legally. Not even if you wait in line for 12 hours a day for five years.

That's where the solution needs to start. Instead of spending all this money on more border patrol and fences, we should greatly expand our embassy operations in the country of origin and take over the entire process--soup to nuts. After we correctly model the process for a few years, we gradually turn certain functions back over to the host country.

Even better: We use all of that money to establish something similar to the perpetual education fund and teach people how to be productive and successful in their own country--how to lift their families out of poverty and provide hope for their children. That way we redirect the biggest motivator for immigration back into enrichment of the home community.

FWIW, that's precisely why Paolo Freire (Pedagogy of the Opressed) was imprisoned and then had to live in exile--he was teaching impoverished peasants in Brazil to read, write, and engage in critical dialogue about their condition.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

That all sounds fine and good, Roper. But we still would need to get the border under control or we'd be throwing our money away down there. That HAS to be the first step--border control. Then we can work on all the other issues.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Fine. We'll split the money. That way you can dress in camo and play army man along the border or supervise fence construction or something and I can head to Latin America and teach peasants to read and write and engage in critical thinking about their impoverished condition.

If I get put in jail, will you please come and get me out?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I don't know if that would work, roper. To do it all "in-house" at an expanded US embassy / consul level may cause an usurption of sovereignty within some nations. I don't know how it all works, but it seems there would have to be something that the losing country has to do when legal immigration is concerned, not just the gaining country.

And the perpetual education fund idea is probably the best thing to be doing all along, but can you imagine how that is going to go over in impoverished nations where it isn't a charitable organization doing it? Can you imagine what sort of fuel that could add to the fire for whackos like Nutty Chavez? 'They are instilling our people with propaganda so that they will overthrow our government and take control of all my... er our national resources... and they have plans of invading and assassinating me!' Think about it, how would you feel if say, the government of China or India created a program here in the U.S. to teach us all about how their society operates and how to study and be educated in the same fashion as them since we have such a trade deficit to them and all our IT jobs are being off-shored to India anyway.

No, if not via a perpetual education / micro loan program that is charitable or domestic business in nature, that sort of program needs to be top down from within the nation, not instituted from outside the nation by another nation.

Securing the border seems to be the most practical thing to do first. Take away the ease with which illegal immigration can occur first and then focus on removing the incentive while working on incenting folks to stay in their native lands by helping the grass to start growing greener there.

arbilad · Head Chef

Not to ignite the dieing fire, but I thought of a great analogy for illegal immigration. Immigration is like sex; done within the proper bounds it is a great thing, and can greatly enrich the lives of those involved. Done outside the right boundaries, it is a horrible, destructive thing that is spiritually numbing.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Ugh. Please never use that analogy again.

And btw, for future reference, another thing you (meaning those who engage in the discussion) use which I could do without is the many times I've heard you and others say, "I have nothing against mexicans, I love mexican food."

I know some of you are sincere, but it comes off as amazingly condescending and insulting to sum up a group of people by their food.

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

Ugh. Please never use that analogy again.

And btw, for future reference, another thing you (meaning those who engage in the discussion) use which I could do without is the many times I've heard you and others say, "I have nothing against mexicans, I love mexican food."

I know some of you are sincere, but it comes off as amazingly condescending and insulting to sum up a group of people by their food.

--Ray

It also comes across as amazingly condescending to use only one part of a person's statement in order to cast that statement in the worst possible light. I also said that I admire their work ethic, their religiousity, and their family values. But of course, it's harder to cast those statements in a bad light.

And I love the analogy I came up with. It expresses perfectly my feelings on the situation.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

rayb wrote:

Ugh. Please never use that analogy again.

I know some of you are sincere, but it comes off as amazingly condescending and insulting to sum up a group of people by their food.

--Ray

Just like it does when folks equate Germans to beer, WWII, certain types of food, and funny accents...
Just like it does when folks equate Japanese to sushi, victims of atomic bombs, hi-tech electronics, video games, and anime...
Just like it does when folks equate Russians to borscht, vodka, dictatorships, and faulty nuclear reactors...
Just like it does when folks equate British to yorkshire pudding, lack of use of braces on teeth, Winston Churchill, and intriguing accents...
Just like it does when folks equate Italians to pasta and pizza, talking with their hands, the Roman Catholic church, wine and romance, and cultural pride to the extreme...
Just like it does when folks equate Americans to hotdogs and apple pie, talking loudly in order to make foreigners understand them, arrogance, rock 'n roll, and big gas guzzling cars...
Just like it does when folks equate members of the Church from outside the Intermountain West/Pacific Coast to quaint provincial wannabes...
Just like it does when folks equate members of the Church from the Intermountain West/Pacific Coast as pampered and naive...

We can't fault folks for their experiential associations built up concerning those of different cultures -- right, wrong, or indifferent -- but we can indeed be more sensitive as to how we stereotype those of other cultures.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Remember, that when the Germans arrive we must not mention the war!

Fawlty Towers!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

If you love your analogy, Arbi, why don't you marry it!? :P

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Maybe he only loves it like a sister...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Considering the analogy... Eeew...

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Okay, here is something to consider...

John Lott: Immigration Debate May Be Dead, but Flaws in Legislation Remain

Had the bill been passed, were you guys ready for all the fallout that would have come about? How about the clogging of the justice system as those who had been given amnesty via the Z-visas started sueing employers for not paying them minimum wage? How about the increased strain on welfare systems of unemployed Z-visa holders as employers started firing those on Z-visas rather than run the risk of legal action for the visibility they could now be scrutinzed under? How about the addition of another million or more illegal aliens to replace the sub-minimum pay accepting workers that now have Z-visas for employers who were still willing to run the risk of employing undocumented aliens at sub-minimum pay?

I don't disagree there was a lot of passion on both sides of this bill, but the fact remains there was a lot of long-term fallout that proponents of the bill had not taken into account.

You can't approach legal policy and the law in the same fashion executive leadership in a big company approach company re-orgs, or this is the latest "trend" amongst the CEO club and their yes-man consultants as to how to organize things... until the next wave of fads and group of executive management is hired and wants to re-make things to show how wonderful they are and deserving of their executive compensation packages... And that is what this bill was all about. It was short-term, knee-jerk reaction to a self-professed crisis by the politicians that was not even looking at the root problems that create the problem in the first place.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Talk to the boot stomping on the human face--forever.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Maybe this is another thing that should be fixed first too... enforcement of minimum wage statutes, enforcement of employment law... Dunno...

But, maybe if there was not so great a desire to pay substandard wages, there wouldn't be so great a demand for undocumented workers. I'm not advocating raising the minimum wage necessarily, but making sure that employers are paying employees what they should be according to law.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Will somebody please go back and read "The Proper Role Of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson, and "Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen" by H. Verlan Andersen, and tell me what the US Constitution, including the Bill Of Rights, has to say about employment laws and laws governing wages.

-- Edited by lundbaek at 05:22, 2007-07-05

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

lundbaek, I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but why don't you just tell us so that we are sure to be on the same page with what you are getting at?

Maybe you are infering that state and federal laws establishing a minimum hourly wage are an unconstitutional governmental taking of a business owner's wealth and socialist in nature? That is all I was able to remotely infer from reading the essay by Ezra T. Benson...

In case it was forgotten, H. Verlan Andersen's works are and have been out of print for some time... some folks apparently even feel so strongly about this that they infer the Church has erred by taking them out of print. But, back to the question of what were you inferring from Ezra T. Benson's essay... Well, maybe this is along the lines "Furthermore if government is used to compel a private employer to hire an employee or pay a minimum wage or other compensation against his will, this also is extortion." (from an essay attributed to H. Verlan Andersen on Apostasy). I did eventually find something that claimed to be an electronic version of his book...

Maybe then the same thing should be said about anything that ensures fair and safe treatment of workers... e.g. paid vacation days or paid time off like holidays, or overtime pay, or guarantee of a job when returning from short-term disability or extended need to care for family member or pregnancy or military duty, or minimum age requirements for employees, or the max number of hours teens can work in a week in a non-agricultural non-family owned business, or health and safety requirements, or the right to apply for and expect equal consideration as a candidate for a job regardless of certain things upon which one can be discriminated against, or the right to expect one's pension or other employer funded retirement plan will remain solvent as promised by the employer, or a whole lot of other things we take for granted that were enacted to prevent the overwhelming number of big companies and their owners from being robber barons they are when not kept in check? Isn't the abuses of the robber baron mentality what gave rise to socialism and communism in the first place? While the employment laws we have in our nation are not a perfect scenario, they are a far different thing than socialism.

p.s. In case anyone is wondering, the Constitution and Bill of Rights does not explicitly say anything about employment laws and laws governing wages, with the exception of section 6 and Amendment XXVII (concerning compensation for members of Congress) and Amendment XIII (which is outlawing of slavery and involuntary servitude outside of penalty for breaking the law within the U.S.).

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 11:34, 2007-07-05

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Acccording to the 10th Amendment, if a particular "power" was not assigned to the federal government by the Constitution, it is "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, the FedGov is prohibited from exercising that "power", or authority. Which means to me the FedGov is not to involve itself in employment laws and wages.

I assume the constitution of each state may or may not address these and other issues not assigned to the FedGov, but that's a states' rights matter.

The FedGov has gotten its nose into a lot of things it was not authorized to get into, at considerable detriment to the country, in my opinion.

CatHerder raised an interesting point about publication of the works of H. Verlan Andersen having been discontinued. I and others find it interesting that in 1972 an Apostle, Ezra Taft Benson, recommended the reading of "Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen" in the April Conference. Ittook me about 20 years to get around to it. Several months ago I spoke with the current copyright holder, a son of H.V. Andersen, who told me and others in our meeting that he had been asked by a church authority to discontinue printing, but not sales. He did not tell us who, and he said he was not told specifically why. However, in the Appendix of the 1998 edition the son wrote something to the effect that the topic of the book caused considerable dissention in the Church. And I think we can agree that it does. I believe the messeges of the book are still valid and applicable today, but that members in general cannot deal with the disagreements brought on by the messages. In trying to draw attention to and interest in the book and in the topic in general I obviously have antagonized a few people. But what should one expect from an old onion with many layers of skin who is trying (and not just on this forum by any means) to prevent further deterioration of our country?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

There are states where the minimum wage is higher than the federally mandated basement minimum wage. You are entirely correct that it is (or was) ultimately a state power. The fact of the matter is that most states have deferred to the federal rate, as they can not go under it and it is too business unfriendly to mandate anything higher.

Simplistically put, when it comes to employment law, the federal government has simply set a minimum, uniform standard for all states so that the playing field is essentially leveled to the benefit of employers and the protection of employees. I submit that states which go above those minimum standards are perhaps causing greater economic harm than a federal standard.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Okay, here is something a little more on topic... would anyone consider this a Romney flip-flop? I'm sure he is going to get grilled on it... He seemed to be all for the Z-Visa back in the second debate, now he is stating that the bill was full of "amnesty"... I can see how he can change and evolve in his viewpoint, but I honestly think his opponents (if they can figure out how to run with it while not making themselves look like idiots) will use it against him.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Romney has been consistent on his opposition to the bill. He got on Medved when it first came out and said that while he supported many of the bill's provisions, he thought the Z-Visa part seemed more of an Amnesty than he was comfortable with...

I mentioned this way back in another thread... (heck, it might've been this one). This was one of my criticisms of him, because I liked the Z-Visa plan, and I thought Romney was annoyingly noncommittal to it.

--Ray

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Lundie,

I am very familiar with Benson's views, having read a few of his political books--indeed I read "An Enemy Hath done This" when I was 12, and it shaped my politics until I went to BYU. But I don't know about Anderson. What is the main thesis of this book you are recommending? What are his major arguments?

palmon · Senior Member

I have read bits and pieces of the discussion. I'm not sure that I really want to contribute because the insinuations and insults are pretty distressing. I some how think the people here are above such things. But here goes:

2 sons were born overseas. Neither became citizens in the country they were born in just because they were born there. They did, however, inherit their parent's citizenship: US.

I have a sweet, wonderful, darn near perfect DIL that overstayed her visa. She now has a green card because she married my son. One granddaughter was what is referred to as an "anchor baby". I love her with my life - as I do all my grandchildren.

The problem isn't the sweet, hard working people - the problem is the true criminals that come with the hard working people.

My son served his mission in with the spanish speaking in VA.
After he came home, he returned. His first finace came over the border - brought by her then boyfriend. Guess you could call him a coyote. He was in VA and his business was selling fake ID's, etc. Of her three children that came with her - one was a 16 year old that she specfically brought into the US so that he would not be sent to a Mexican prison because he molested a 2 year old.

We live in a land of "milk and honey" and naturally that attracts people in poorer countries. It attracts the evil minded as much as it attracts the decent. Without checks, without going through the proper process - there is no way to weed out the bad seeds. We have enough of our own that are indigineous to the US, we have no need to import the criminals of another country.

Should we talk about the young man that got into trouble recently because he traveled with a resistant strain of TB? I kinda laughed at that. Why should we worry about his travels, when we have absolutely no idea what diseases are brought in by illegal immigrants? We all go through radiation scanners when we fly. For what purpose? We have no idea what comes through our porous borders?

There were serious problems with that bill. Big employers pushed it because they want that cheap labor. But really, can you really believe that a background check can be accomplished in 24 hours? It is my understanding that is all the time given for these z-visas. Even if it were 3 years, with the millions that would apply for the z-visa, it could not be done. Just look at the mess that is happening with passports now.

About laws: It is said that those coming across the borders or overstaying the borders are criminals. Maybe so. Maybe not.
But from watching my dil and her family (brothers and sisters), there seems to be a very loose attitude when it comes to obeying laws that aren't convient. They (the siblings) have false ID's so that they can work. They don't have drivers licenses but they still drive. If they do get a drivers licsence, it is under the false ID. The arguement that it is the fact that being an illegal alien causes them to do these things doesn't hold water. If I stole someone's idenitification and got a drivers licsence with it - I would expect to spend several years in jail. Either we have laws that we expect everyone to obey or we don't have laws. By the way, I would like to have my past taxes forgiven too.

I am all for immigration. (We are trying really hard to get another granddaughter into the states. It might take a couple of years. ) But the immigration has to be done legally, in an orderly fashion. Every nation on earth has the right to determine whom it allows into the country. Even Mexico does and thry are very strict about it - especially with US citizens working in their country.

IMO, the first start is the border. The broken border must be fixed. The quicker we stop the inflow, the more we can let in legally.

-- Edited by palmon at 11:38, 2007-07-06

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Fear of Shiz asked me for a summary, or the major arguement of the book "Many Are Called Bur Few Are Chosen" by H. Verlan Andersen. It's a short book, in on-line except for the Appendix, and doesn't take long to read. But the following struck me as the most significant message.

It is an exercise of unrighteous dominion to forcibly take any property from one to whom it belongs and give it to another to whom it does not belong. Each person must let his own conscience determine this, with the risk that if he reaches the wrong conclusion, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Most people agree that each person has a moral obligation to be charitable, but it is not morally right for us to compel others to be as charitable as we might think they should be. It is our moral obligation to allow them to determine for themselves how much they shall give.

If those who are wealthy fail to voluntarily impart of their substance to the poor, they will be adequately punished by the Lord for their selfishness. (D&C 104:18) If, through the force of government or otherwise they are compelled to divide with those in need, how can the Lord either bless them for being charitable or punish them for being uncharitable? The same freedom which permits men to do evil permits them to do good. If you destroy one, you have destroyed both and made freedom of choice, with its consequent rewards and punishments, impossible.

We do not have the moral right to authorize government to do that which we ourselves, as individuals, do not have the right to do.

I am trying to summarize the book chapter by chapter and hope to be done this weekend. Others have asked for this also. My summary will be a bit long for this forum. If anyone wants the whole summary, email me at gretheandralph@hotmail.com and use MACBFAC as the subject.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Thank you for your comments, palmon. A bit more first hand experience than I believe anyone else here has with regards to illegal immigration, and very pragmatic. It isn't an easy thing to take care of, and a pie in the sky bill like this was is not going to solve the underlying core problems. This is not said in a belittling manner, but a lot of the problem is cultural in nature... cultural in the sense that things are not as good in the native lands of the people, but exascerbated by the incentive and ability to come to our nation illegally and stay here in a "shadow" sub-culture that further ignores laws it finds problematic. We remove that incentive and ability by actually doing what our laws intend, and thereby eliminate the "shadow" sub-culture that is not evolving our society (as some would contend), but undermining it and making it more like the problematic societies and corrupt governments of where the folks came from. Thus, people are cornered into the choice of coming here legally and assimilating into our society legally, or they stay at home and work to fix the problems in their own native land.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

In response to Lundbaek's post.

That's essentially the premise in "Liberalism, Conservatism, and Mormonism" by Hyrum Andrus. Andrus argues that the proper role of government is to protect the liberty of citizens so that they may act with the greatest amount of agency. The State is not the agent of social justice, economic equality, etc. That is rightly the role of the Church. When the State unrighteously usurps that role, it forcefully takes the property of citizens (through taxes), denies citizens the agency to choose to be charitable or not, and creates a culture of entitlement and dependence. Andrus argues that such a system is in direct conflict with the Constitution, which was inspired by God, and as such is a system in direct conflict with the Kingdom of God.

This book, more than any other, helped to shape my own political beliefs.

Lundbaek, thank you for reminding me about "Many are Called." Now that my courses are done for the summer, I'll go back and find the link you provided previously to read it online.

-- Edited by Roper at 09:59, 2007-07-06

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

lund, I appreciate your effort to summarize. I think you know I don't entirely agree with the political stance and philosophy represented by the writings of Ezra Taft Benson and H. Verlan Andersen and others affiliated with the John Birch Society, and I am sorry if in the past it has come across as being at odds with you. I think the writings and philosophies have an overly reactionary element to them, and draw conclusions that can be viewed as stretches. Too often, those that "preach" the viewpoint do so with a rather dogmatic, intolerant approach.

As example, from your summary, on the stretchy conclusions:
"If, through the force of government or otherwise they are compelled to divide with those in need, how can the Lord either bless them for being charitable or punish them for being uncharitable?"
The Lord can bless or punish them for what the desire of their heart is. If they feel compelled because the public ratifies the government institution of a law that taxes and uses the funds to aide the poor, then is it a stretch to assume they (meaning those who feel compelled) may be lacking the desire to help those in need? If it were not something one could claim as an itemized deduction against personal income tax, how many people do you think would actually part with their money or goods contributed to "charitable" organizations?

To use another example, if the public votes for a millage to pay for bike trails or public green space upkeep within a municipality, is it a stretch to assume that those who voted against it will feel the increase to their property taxes and voted against it will feel compelled? Was it their desire to have the bike trails or maintainence of public green space? Probably not. But, they are subject to the same taxation law as any other property owner now, and they can afford themselves of the amenity the millage pays for as applicable to their individual situation as well as any other citizen.

We are told in the Book of Mormon that we will not just be judged upon our actions or inactions, but upon our thoughts and desires. If not so, then why would the admonition have been given that the poor should take the attitude that they give not simply because they have not with which to give rather than an attitude of I don't have help others in need because I'm poor? Charity, in gospel terms, is not about giving to the poor. It is about loving all mankind the same way The Lord loves each of us. One can be under the worst of despots for a government and still develop and have charity, is my thought.

Maybe this would be better for a different topic thread. Could be a good, interesting discussion.

edited to correct why I was referencing the summary so that it didn't come across as an example of something I was not meaning.

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 10:09, 2007-07-06

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

MACBFAC

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

RE: Eisenhower solved illegal immigration

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Something else to think about as part of the immigration issue:

Pro-Immigration Forces Back North American Union
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/9/140357.shtml
John O. Edwards
Monday, July 9, 2007

America is finished.

Mexico and Canada are gone too.

In their place: One massive country, the North American Union (NAU), bordered by the Bering Sea to the north and Guatemala to the south, the Atlantic to the east and the Pacific to the west.

NAU citizens no longer spend dollars or salute Old Glory. They spend "ameros," and the flag that waves over its capitals shows the entire Western Hemisphere.

The national borders of the United States have been forever erased. While that scenario may sound far-fetched, critics of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) warn that future could be here sooner than anyone realizes.

President Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin informally agreed to set up the SPP in 2005.

Not so well known is the fact that supporters of the NAU concept slipped an initiative into the recently defeated immigration reform act. Largely unnoticed amidst the amnesty furor that ultimately sunk the Immigration Bill was the statement, "It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico."

The bill called for measures to boost the economy of Mexico, including:

U.S. support for Mexico, to strengthen its education and training programs.
A call for better health care for "poor and underserved" people in Mexico.
And U.S. assistance to "establish a program with the private sector to cover the health care needs of Mexican nationals temporarily employed in the United States."
The bill also called for U.S. assistance to Mexican businesses and government to eliminate corruption, which it termed, "the single biggest obstacle to development."
"This was the first attempt by the SPP to go public, and it failed," says Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of The Late Great USA. They thought nobody would notice. They were wrong."

Corsi called the sPP "a coup d-etat by bureaucratic means," adding that it works underhandedly like a shadow government.

"It is an attempt to turn North America into something like the European Economic Community," he says, "which began with economic cooperation and expanded eventually to include a common market, and then a full-scale regional government replacing, in many ways, the governing powers of the member nations."

Documents recently obtained by public interest group Judicial Watch reveal that "working groups" of the SPP are developing plans for U.S. taxpayer-funded initiatives to improve Mexico's infrastructure, within just six to 18 months.

SSP plans include:

Creating a North American Pandemic Influenza Plan;
Facilitating cross-border travel;
Establishing Social Security totalization for Mexican aliens working in the United States;
Creating a Trans-Texas Corridor superhighway with truck, car, and train lanes running from Mexico to Canada.

Following the 2005 tri-lateral summit, the three leaders agreed, "We will establish ministerial-led working groups that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working groups will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals."

The working groups include committees on "Manufactured Goods and Sectoral and Regional Competitiveness, Movement of Goods, Energy, Environment, E-Commerce and Information Communications Technologies, Financial Services, Business Facilitation, Food and Agriculture, Transportation and Health," according to the SPP Web, www.spp.gov.

"Basically, the SPP eliminates borders," Dr. Corsi tells NewsMax. "Just as in Europe, once free-flowing cross-border travel and full economic cooperation are established, the next step will be multi-national regulations and multi-national court systems to resolve disputes, with powers that supercede those of U.S. courts in many cases."

Opponents of the NAU slipping its provisions into a bill sold as way to strengthen the integrity of the nation's borders reflects the determination of those pushing a North American union.

The SPP has struck back with a FAQ section on their U.S. website, www.spp.gov, which attempts to counter "myths" of its ultimate aims, stressing that the SPP "does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency."

As to charges that the SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the Congress, the FAQs state, "US agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans." SPP confirms that the SPP is a "White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the Prosperity' component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the Security' component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy."

"They deny it of course they do, but the ultimate direction of all these actions is driven by a one-world view," Dr. Corsi says. Corsi contends that President Bush has a secret agenda to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union.

"However, as more people in the United States are becoming aware of the goals of the SPP, grassroots opposition to the SPP is growing very fast."

One example: 12 states are currently considering resolutions opposing the establishment of the NAU.

There is a federal effort to block the SPP as well.

It is spearheaded by a resolution, HCR 40, which states, "The United States should not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and the President should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States." The resolution also calls for the U.S. to not "engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement Superhighway System."

The resolution notes that "reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has implemented regulatory changes among the three countries that circumvent U.S. trade, transportation, homeland security and border security functions and that the SPP will continue to do so in the future."

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., who tells NewsMax, "I hope that more Americans will become aware of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which will lead to a North American union and the destruction of the sovereignty of the United States."

Cong. Goode, who opposed the Immigration Bill saying it would be "a disaster to our nation if it were to become law," says his resolution has attracted over two dozen co-sponsors so far.

"Defeat of the Immigration Bill was a setback for the supporters of the SPP, but they won't just give up and go away," Corsi warns. "There is a huge amount of international capital driving this. They will not give up easily."

© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Vely intelesting...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Just think of how easy it will be to do missionary work when there's no border issues. We should all immediately learn Spanish and French (and Arabic, for that matter!) so we can teach them the restored truth and welcome them with love and open arms!

--Ray

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

-- Edited by fear of shiz at 17:36, 2007-07-11

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

ray's GOT to be kidding.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

{At the thought of having to learn the romance languages of French and Spanish, starts singing a rousing version of the hymn "Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken", as it is the same tune as the German National Anthem...}

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

If ray were in charge we'd already all be spraikens de Deutsch already. rolleyes