This statement is from the CP News at a Glance posted below. Since the NAAG is not in a format that lends itself to posting in toto, I will highlight individual articles that seem important enough to warrant their own post:
Both President Obama and Governor Romney have no solution to illegal immigration. In fact the policies of both will encourage the continuation of the illegal invasion into our country. Obama’s temporary amnesty and work permits for illegals and Romney’s statement that “the status of young people… should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future would be in this country” will lead more of those waiting at the border to enter in expectation of a future amnesty.
Goode said, “Unlike Romney, if I am elected President, I will promptly rescind the Obama amnesty order. Amnesty in any form only encourages more illegal entry into the United States.”
A way to reduce unemployment, reduce the deficit, and provide more jobs for U.S. citizens is to end illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration. In recent years about 1.2 million green cards have been issued annually and over 60% go to foreigners who come to the United States and take jobs from American citizens. I have proposed a moratorium (with a few minor exceptions) on issuing green cards until our unemployment rate is under 5 percent. America has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world and it is time for the citizens of this country to be at the head of the line for jobs. We also need to totally end diversity visas (50,000 per year), reduce chain migration, and dramatically reduce asylees and refugees and their costs to the U.S. taxpayer.
The question is not whether there is transcendence of self but whether it is voluntary.
What items are meaningless and what I need or what you need is for each of us to figure out individually. Trying to centrally plan it results in mass starvation, mass repression, mass war etc. The degree of which worsens with greater reliance on central planning.
What you do is up to you; what others do should be up to them, not up to you, provided they give you the same respect to make your own choices.
That’s a categoric statement of extreme proportions. NO place? Sounds like a cross between North Korea and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, with perhaps a bit of Rand’s Dystopic vision in Anthem or Zamyatin’s We.
I was born in Siberia. I take it you haven’t been there.
Coercive government is inherently evil and exists because of the evil in the hearts of those who get off on controlling, abusing and forcing others.
Actions speak louder than words, and Wilson brought the US into the World War after running as a peace candidate. Many terrible things happened as a result, including the second world war.
Patriotism often serves as an excuse for slaughter and repression. Not all patriotic sentiment is along these lines, but much of it is.
JD further writes @59, “Patriotism does not cause war. Lack of communication and understanding does.”
“Patriotism” — or more precisely the xenophobia and prejudice/discrimination against those not recognized as being part of a limited and arbitrary “us” which sometimes like to dignify itself with that term — this is very much the result of a lack of communication and understanding!
With better communication and understanding, people of goodwill would not want to deny others the equal protection of the law on the basis of characteristics they generally do not choose — language, culture, and place of birth.
JD @9 writes “For any nation to survive the border must be secure, plain and simple.”
How do you figure? Historically, U.S. borders were even less “secure” than they are now, as Paulie pointed out @36. Yet the country not only survived as a political jurisdiction — not that the current configuration of borders and jurisdictions is necessarily better for the people living on this part of the earth’s surface than some other configuration might be — but grew to be the wealthiest and most powerful in the world.
East Germany had pretty secure borders though.
JD @55 writes “I cannot believe that there are so many selfish people who don’t understand the concept of we.”
I think I understand the concept. I understand that the concept of “we” has been expanding throughout human history, starting with including only the members of one’s own small small nomadic tribe, and gradually enlarging itself to include others of the same extended family, village, clan, race, religion and nation, the latter concept now even encompassing hundreds of millions of people.
Along the way, the sense of “we” was strengthened as it applied to people of different gender, different mental and physical abilities, different sexual orientation, and so on.
Some of us have now managed to further expand the concept of “we” to include all humanity, and even to some extent include the rest of life on planet earth and potentially beyond.
Of course in a political context, I tend to use the term “we” to mean people who are broadly pro-freedom (i.e. value both civil liberties and economic freedom). Since people are free to choose their political philosophies and worldviews, that seems fairer and more accurate than to base my sense of “we” on who has or has not been granted a particular document by some government.
Patriotism does not cause war. Lack of communication and understanding does. War is always wrong even though it is sometimes unavoidable because it has been thrust on many a good a decent people through no fault of there own. War is the ultimate diplomatic failure.
I respectfully quote President Woodrow Wilson to make a point that patriotism and idealism can be peaceful in its application: “The example of America must be a special example. The example of America must be the example not merely of peace because it will not fight, but of peace because peace is the healing and elevating influence of the world and strife is not. There is such a thing as a man being too proud to fight. There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right.”
I have nothing else to say on this thread. I wish all who read this many blessings of Hope, Love, Joy, and Peace.
JD @ 57,
—–
Patriotism is predicated on the acknowledgement of “we”.
—–
You say that like it’s a good thing.
The hundreds of millions of dead victims of various “patriotisms” might argue with you.
If they weren’t dead.
Patriotism is predicated on the acknowledgement of “we”. Without trancendence of self there is no state with which to take pride in. Bubba no matter what you say you dont need cheap meaningless things built by slave labor. I am a conservative, live within my means, and give to others before I give to myself. There is no place for self in civilization and certainly not in this one. If stateless living is your goal I can recommend Siberia, Somalia, or Chiapas. Government is not a necessary evil nor is it in any way inherently evil. On the contrary it exist because of evil. It also protects those who do evil from retribution at the hands of the righteous.
I can’t believe there are so many arrogant busybodies who feel it is their place to decide what other people need or don’t need. Run your own life and stay out of other people’s unless they ask you nicely.
“We instincts” are just fine, when they are voluntary associations.
I can not believe that there are so many selfish people who dont understand the concept of we. We as humans are statistically shown to be social creatures. Those without an ability to develop a “we” instinct are suffering from serious issues. Bubba, we, as humans, dont need anything other than food, fiber, shelter, and companionship. We choose flat screens and fast food.
Yes worthless crap that we dont need is cheaper
Who decides what “we” need? Central economic planning doesn’t work.
Whig and Republican protectionism created the foundation for what would make us an economic super power.
No, it only retarded growth.
Paulie even the lite versions of free trade and unrestricted immigration have been absolute disasters. Yes worthless crap that we dont need is cheaper, but wages have retarded to sub 1970’s levels proportionate to inflation. This is freely available info. You dont even need to look it up just look around. Free trade didnt make America great nor did surplus labor. Whig and Republican protectionism created the foundation for what would make us an economic super power. The world is not run by abstract conceptions. It is run by action and judged on results. The results show free wheeling economics to be an outright disaster.
Better than it would be if it was more restricted, worse than if it was less restricted….and it’s far from “basically unlimited” except through the back door.
Relative to what it would be under your proposal, yes.
So everything is so much better now with basically unlimited immigration? Wages are up? Unemployment is down? You can not be so audacious as to say that a surplus of available labor is better for the economy than a surplus of decent jobs. I am going to chalk it up to a poor attempt at trolling and end my involvement with this nonsense.
Expand your economic analysis. If you artificially restrict the market for labor, that hurts consumers, and/or kills businesses or stops them from being created. However, immigration still happens, it’s just driven underground.
Government central planners are incompetent to decide optimal supply of labor; the markets self-regulates for labor levels, prices and so on.
R.D. you are correct. The policy is also not retroactive. Those who have permission to be here already would not be expelled. He also does not advocate any reduction in the L1 visas. Those are the tech experts that are desperately needed. I actually spoke to Mr. Goode and he is very polite and articulate.
I understand Mr. Goode’s position to be for a moratorium on green card admissions. A green card gives the worker the right to work at any job he or she wants to in the United States. The green card is also the first step toward citizenship. This does not apply to H-2A workers, who can only do the job for which their Visa allows. For example, an H-2A worker can pull tobacco or pick fruit. The worker can only do that job and no other. The H-2A worker has to return to Mexico or his home country as soon as the work season is over. The H-2A is worker is not a green card holder. The Democrats do not like H-2A workers because they do not get to become citizens. Most people do not understand the multitude of Visas and what enables the “visitors” to get benefits. The general public does not and the Hispanic lobby does. I think Mr. Goode’s position on this issue — now explained — is more agreeable.
Knapp, I should have qualified my statement for you. I do not personally have, own, or believe in the use of firearms. Less than lethal force barely qualifies as weaponry. I work in a dangerous industry and have been assaulted by such weaponry and it didnt even knock me down.
You said I didnt understand the use of we. Clearly I do. Just because you have a different definition does not mean mine is wrong.
You, knapp and paulie, are both correct that Americans are lazy. I would gladly work 60 hours a week at my job but overtime laws get in the way. I used to work in a feed mill about that much in 120 degree temps and I actually liked the job. There is a way to fix this problem but that is another topic entirely.
. So you agree that being helpful and safe at the border would be an improvement?
I agree that a border where people are screened, without any quotas on the number that can come across, is better than what we have now. It would also be more secure, because only “the bad guys” would be crossing illegally, thus being a lot more possible to police (relatively). It’s not my ideal, but it would be a step in the right direction.
With unemployment such a problem in many areas, maybe there are citizens who would work those jobs now, even if they would not a few short years ago?
Alabama’s jihad against brown folks has already caused problems in agriculture.
Back when I ran furniture moving and construction businesses in NYC, I would have been in serious trouble if I only employed native born Americans. Most of those were glad to take the money but didn’t like to work very much, and especially not reliably.
RD@44,
In southern Missouri (where I grew up) and northern Arkansas, I’ve been told that the poultry industry would shut down absent immigrant labor (by people involved in that industry).
I believe it.
Not quite 20 years ago, I was looking for a job and had an interview at a poultry plant. The starting pay was not bad for the area and time, but after smelling the place and seeing the faces of the people who worked there, I literally prayed that something, ANYTHING, would come along before I heard back from them. Something did. It paid about 30% less, but I jumped on it, even knowing damn well that the poultry people would be calling to offer me a job within a day or two.
There was one job at that plant that they couldn’t even get immigrant workers to do — apart from one supervisor the entire crew was composed of slave labor from the local jail. That was “in-processing” — pulling turkeys off of trucks, hanging them from a moving cable by their feet, and slitting their throats.
Up in the St. Louis area, I see a lot of Hispanic workers in the small-scale construction/repair and landscaping industries (a neighborhood of significant size a couple of miles to my west has seemingly gone from a mostly black English-speaking area to a mostly — or least plurality — Hispanic, Spanish-speaking area in the 12 years I’ve lived here). Down in southern Missouri, where my parents still lived, my dad had a roofing job done a couple of years ago. The roofers were Mexican immigrants; the contractor told my dad that most of his crews were Mexican.
Oh, and I used Agriculture as an example in my area. I would be interested to know what other industries/jobs in your area are dependent on workers from outside our borders?
“Zero Immigration?” My concern are the agricultural jobs in my area [tobacco, for one example]. Without migrant labor, how are those farmers going to get their crops out of the fields? And over in the coastal areas, there is sweet corn and all kinds of vegetables. If Americans are not willing to do those “hot and dirty jobs” and the labor has to be done and some just cannot be accomplished with mechanization, those “immigrants” are vital. I’m not sure if “Zero Immigration” means a halt to temporary labor coming into America or not, but I will find out. A note of interest: While I say “Americans will not do those jobs”, meaning genuine citizens, I know of one huge farm in eastern North Carolina which has almost shut down production due to a lawsuit from the NAACP, so it is possible there are Americans who sould do the work. Perhaps my opinion that immigration — at least, some immigration — is a good thing, to help with regional labor shortages, is in error. With unemployment such a problem in many areas, maybe there are citizens who would work those jobs now, even if they would not a few short years ago? I don’t know. Maybe. What do you guys (and girls) think?
JD @ 35,
—–
Again this is a philosophical difference. You dont believe in the existence of “we”.
—–
I believe in the existence of all kinds of “we”s. Some of them I choose to be part of. Some I choose not to be part of. Some insist that I be part of them at gunpoint.
—–
You adhere to a selfish doctrine. I believe that there is a greater good.
—–
I’m not sure why you think the two positions are necessarily contradictory.
—–
“We” are a people and rightfully so. Admiral James Stockdale once said U.S. meant Unity over Self.
—–
That’s not a “we” that I consider myself part or, or will voluntarily act as part of.
—–
I dont believe in weapons, dont own them, and dont need them. I also have not advocated any use of violence whatsoever.
—–
You do @39.
—–
I must say that I do not understand how you intend to maintain the liberty that you clearly hold dear without laws that protect that right.
—–
And I do not understand why you think that I propose to.
—–
Without a written social contract what is to stop a private concern from using force to remove your rights?
—–
I’ve got nothing at all against written social contracts. If I ever negotiate, or am presented with, one that I agree to the terms of, I’ll sign it. What I won’t do is consider myself bound by alleged contracts I’ve never consented to, or support treating others who have not consented to said contract as bound by it.
I’m also unaware of any existing or past “social contract” which has stopped private concerns from violating rights.
Yes net immigration is decreasing. I never said it wasn’t. I also dont believe that social welfare programs is a primary reason for migration. If that were a primary motivator I would think they would keep on to Canada. Quite a few have but not for that reason. So you agree that being helpful and safe at the border would be an improvement? If so we have done our job, at least based on the goals of this exercise.
If you mean no quotas, I would consider that an improvement. I’m not opposed to incremental improvements.
The intake is already based on market needs; it’s just that some of it is driven underground by politicians trying, and failing, to outguess the market. Since the recession the flow of migrants has been if anything in the other direction on net, yet conservatives still manage to get worked up about immigration.
Just as with drugs, prostitution, or any other consensual “crime,” border thuggery utterly fails to keep workers from getting to where the jobs are. The idea that mass amounts of people immigrate to be on welfare is simply not true. This has been proven by the exodus of many undocumented workers back to their countries of origin from the US in the last 5 years.
Pancho Villa? I can also cite lack of immunizations as a concern. I believe this last digression began because R.D. wanted to hear some type of problem solving going on. I would like to try an experiment in compromise.
Would it be acceptable to have a secure border, manned by individuals with less than lethal armaments, whose primary responsibility would be to help migrants get to processing stations for documentation and welcoming to the country. An Ellis Island project where there would be medical checkups and such. The less than lethal armaments would only be necessary in the case of self defense should any border guard happen upon illegal activity. I mean even with legalized soft drugs there will still be some trade in harder drugs.
In return for a welcoming and still secure border we, as a nation, would not cap immigration levels. The intake would be based on market needs as well as unemployment numbers. Request for lawful immigration could be made in the same manner as now.
That is a balanced solution, agreed? Maybe not fair to either side but still balanced.
Mexico is a pretty poor neighbor.
It was a pretty good neighbor until the drug war, and until border enforcement caused a lot of formerly seasonal migrant workers to stay in the US because going back and forth was no longer as easy.
Paulie, that only works if you have decent neighbors. Mexico is a pretty poor neighbor. The LP wreaks on anarchy to me. I dont think you are bad people but I do disagree with you. I will concede that Gary Johnson is of a more moderate variety and he should be in the debates. I believe at the very least the candidates of each of the FEC Big 5 should be in the debates.
Not all, or even most, LP members are anarchists.
However, the existence or a border does not mean it has to be guarded. After all, states, cities and counties all have borders. The US border with Mexico was unguarded before Nixon’s war on drugs and the US border with Canada was unguarded before 9/11. Were that they were so again.
Again this is a philosophical difference. You dont believe in the existence of “we”. You adhere to a selfish doctrine. I believe that there is a greater good. “We” are a people and rightfully so. Admiral James Stockdale once said U.S. meant Unity over Self. I dont believe in weapons, dont own them, and dont need them. I also have not advocated any use of violence whatsoever. I must say that I do not understand how you intend to maintain the liberty that you clearly hold dear without laws that protect that right. Without a written social contract what is to stop a private concern from using force to remove your rights?
JD,
You use the word “we” a lot.
You don’t seem to have a very good understanding of what it means, though.
“We” don’t need some number of immigrants based on your fantasies.
Particular employers need some particular number of employees, and some of those employees may need to cross the imaginary lines drawn on the ground by your favored street gang to get to work.
The economic demand/supply involved is relevant — and it takes care of itself. Your street gang advocacy is only relevant to the extent that really stupid people sometimes get together and use guns to inflict their stupidity on others.
Of course you do. Reed was asking for solutions to our situation. He seemed confused by the concept and I meant only to reassure him. As an LP member the mere existence of a border to protect is against your philosophy.
I recommend we not become like them in this regard.
Finland, South Korea, Israel, India, and Pakistan. Border guards are a regular part of many nations military forces. Zany do you recommend we cease doing business with those countries?
Is there or is there not an immigration problem?
Not. Current illegal immigration is net zero or negative. When the jobs dried up they stopped coming over and started going back. Ask around in any small town or village in Mexico or Central America how many people have lived in the US.
One last thing R.D. there are several countries that employ military and quasi-military troops on their borders.
Yeah. North Korea, for example. We really want to be more like them.
One last thing R.D. there are several countries that employ military and quasi-military troops on their borders. It isnt that unusual we would just have to decide upon the appropriate allocation. Now, Golden Dawn, in Greece, has recommended an outright end to all immigration and the use of land mines on the border to stop illegal immigration. That is extreme.
pardon the typo…enter not eneter
Border security is our biggest problem. That could be mitigated by putting troops on the border. Immigration, in the general sense, is an issue not a problem. It is an issue because the U.S. has to determine what is the appropriate level of immigration to have and whether or not there are qualifiers for that immigration. I personally say that we need skilled people to move to this country but we only need about 250,000 of them annually. So the general CP and syncretic stance is reduce it to that number. Currently we allow about 1.5 million to eneter legally with an unkown number entering illegally. The essentially the Dems, Repubs, Libertarians, and Greens want to increase that number despite the fact that we dont have a labor shortage. I hope that clears things up a bit.
Is there or is there not an immigration problem? I’d like to see some sincere discussion on the topic, listening to views on more moderate solutions, perhaps? Someone suggested (on another post) bringing all of our troops back to America and stationing them on our southern border…. While that idea leaves me shaking my head, at least it has the merit of being an option. That is the discussion I would like to read on this one…. DH
I meant good based on the scale. The size was my qualifier. Catalonia was essentially an Anarchist “state”. That was, however, of the syndicalist variety. A far different vision than yours but still an idealist experiment. I have nothing against the idealism of anarchism, idealism is a good thing. I just disagree with its application.
JD,
I agree — a legal system of some sort will always be in place.
But that’s neither here nor there.
I am not someone from somewhere else attempting to enter “the United States,” so I don’t have any standing to sue versus unconstitutional regulations stopping me from doing so.
As far as exit is concerned, I’m relatively sure that when I choose to leave, I’ll be able to find a way to do so without kissing the ring, asking permission and paying the bribe that doesn’t require me to bow and scrape before nine ward heelers in black dresses.
There are all kinds of experiments in anarchy going on all the time. How “good” any of those experiments are is a matter of subjective valuation.
The legal system will always be in place no matter what. So you are able to file whatever lawsuits or grievances you please. Even in a Libertarian country there would be a form of legal recourse. The last good experiment in anarchy ended in 1939. It didnt go so well but if that is what you hold on to knapp you are welcome to it.
JD @ 20,
“What of the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798? ”
The Constitution specifically enumerates a power of Congress to regulate naturalization (the acquisition of citizenship).
“And why does the contitution not mention immigration specifically?”
It does — “migration” encompasses both “immigration” and “emigration.”
“How many times has your party filed greivances and/or lawsuits against the government because of its immigration policy?”
I don’t have a party. Nor do I have a government.
I think for most libertarians, the constitution gives the government too much power. But compared to what we have today, going back to the constitution would be a major step in the right direction.
You say 90 years. What of the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798? These were a deterrent to immigration and set standards for immigration. These acts specifically dealt with documentation of immigrants. And why does the contitution not mention immigration specifically? Why simply movement? The words igress and egress were around at the time and are clearly descriptors not used in the constitution.
The Libertarians have a history of legal challenges of every kind. How many times has your party filed greivances and/or lawsuits against the government because of its immigration policy? How many times have you personally? What were the results of those? Nut up or shut up.
JD,
Unfortunately for your argument, neither the framers nor 90 years of US Congresses understood those provisions they way you do. They thought they meant there was no federal power to regulate immigration. And my guess is that they (especially the former group) had a better grasp on what they were trying to do than you do.
“why do anarchist try to act as if they uphold the constitution when they despise all government?”
I don’t claim to “uphold” the Constitution.
But I do hold those who claim to support it to their own standard.
And I do mock those who claim to uphold it when they try to argue their way out of the parts of it they don’t like.
First it says migration or importation. Importation means slaves, migration means individuals moving to them or from them. They needed to make sure the States were not allowed to bar other Americans from entering their state. America, at that time, had no immigration policy because the area was limitless. Things have changed and the world and country are much smaller. The constitution allows congress to do whatever the supreme court says it can do because of necessary and proper. You dont need an amendment because the caveat is already in there. The constitution was a foundation for a government not the finished structure. It was meant to be changed and expanded.
Second point is the border states do have the right to do whatever they wish in securing that border. The supreme court never said Arizona couldnt employ a state border patrol. They are allowed to choose who to admit or not.
Third, why do anarchist try to act as if they uphold the constitution when they despise all government? The Libertarian premise is that government is a problem and an evil. So why hide behind it. Do you seriously not understand that without borders the nation does not exist and your liberty then becomes subject to whomever has the most power? Without borders America would look like Somalia in the 90’s.
At one time in my life I was, wrongly, a libertarian. It is a devolutionary and degenerate creed. You arent bad for believing in it, just mistaken.
One last thing if congress were to go back and go through the un-necessary process of creating a constitutional amendment to give them the power the necessary and proper clause already gives them, would you and the rest of the anarchist stop being so hypocritical by hiding behind a document you despise?
JD@15,
Pardon the canned response, but yes, I have read the document.
And the arguments attending its ratification and indicating its original intent.
And the history of its application.
There is no reasonable doubt whatsoever that the intent of Article I, Section 9 was to absolutely, positively forbid Congress to regulate immigration in any way, shape, manner or form, with the sole exception of levying a limited tax on it, prior to 1808.
Nor is there any reasonable doubt whatsoever that per Article V and Amendment X, even after 1808 the Constitution would have to be amended in order for Congress to acquire a power to regulate immigration in any way, shape, manner or form with the sole exception of levying a small tax on it.
Finally, there is no reasonable doubt that no such amendment has ever been submitted to, and ratified by, the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states pursuant to a vote of 2/3 of both houses of Congress.
Those are the facts.
They’ll remain the facts whether you like them or not.
It must be an embarrassment to the Constitution Party to have nominated a presidential candidate who has so obviously never bothered to read the fucking thing.
The Constitution Party’s name is obviously intended only for rhetorical effect and is not to be taken seriously. Anyone who doubts that need only take a look at their platform, which has entire sections devoted to subjects like gambling and pornography, which are never even implicitly (let alone explicitly) mentioned in the Constitution.
So Knapp are you refering to Article One, section 9 of the constitution? That is the only part of the Constitution that sets limits on congress. That only refers to the slave trade in terms of preventing congress from interfering with someone entering the country. Have you read the document?
A blanket moratorium that affects even so-called “legal” immigration? We need talented workers! Goode’s position is insane. It completely ignores the skills mismatch and misrepresents the reality of the legal immigrant experience. But then again, let’s be honest, Goode’s not looking for votes from American IT workers displaced by recent Indian immigrants (because they don’t exist). He’s gunning for the white working class vote by portraying latino imigration (let’s not kid ourselves) as the root cause of unemployment in this country.
JD@9,
I agree that immigration and national security are very much interlinked.
If you want to “punish lawbreakers at every level,” the place to start would be Congress, which continues to pass immigration regulations in the face of an absolute, indisputable constitutional prohibition on doing so.
“Sounds a lot like what people wrote about immigrants from Italy and Eastern Europe a hundred years ago, immigrants from Germany and Ireland 50 years earlier than that, etc.”
This. The “Nigger Irish” didn’t work hard enough, or worked for too little money, or had unacceptable cultural institutions, or didn’t integrate properly, etc.
It would seem that Victor Davis Hanson blames the federal govt for gutting the economy of Central Valley. Irrigation problems are different than immigration problems and it certainly wasn’t the immigrants the outsourced all the jobs to some other place.
So how is the poverty of Central Valley related to immigrants? Would it be a better place if toothless redneck crackers strung out on meth inhabited the Central Valley trailer parks instead of Mexican families?
@7
If supporting the PATRIOT Act is analogous to not reading or ignoring the Constitution, then your point doesn’t work since Goode is now against the PATRIOT Act.
Immigration reform is one problem we face and border security is another. The problems go hand and hand but they are separate issues. For any nation to survive the border must be secure, plain and simple. Our borders are not secure at all. Reforming immigration involves reduced visas temporarily to stabilize the situation. We should punish law breakers at every level. I personally prefer fines for the unlawful entrants and heavier fines with prison for repeat violators who hire them. Organizations like FAIR only want to return immigration to the levels that existed prior to the Johnson administration. If we allowed 250,000 people per year in we would still get all the skilled technocrats we need. Everything else over that number leads to more blue collar unemployment. Unchecked immigration is bad for everyone. It drives down everyone’s wages and forces the US to deal with the unemployed of other countries. Just to point out again I am about to get married to an immigrant who happens to be employed because of legal immigration. It is her job to help process skilled technocrats when they arrive, legally.
Red @6
Sounds a lot like what people wrote about immigrants from Italy and Eastern Europe a hundred years ago, immigrants from Germany and Ireland 50 years earlier than that, etc.
He couldn’t have read the Constitution since he supported the Patriot Act . Of course, ignorance would be a kind way to label it, since he probably is more of an opportunist than an illiterate.
Tom, when was that? If it was more than a few years ago then you are making my point.
It ain’t what it used to be, as even neocon ideologue (and Central Valley native) Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255320/two-californias-victor-davis-hanson?page=1
Red,
I lived in the Central Valley — Delano, to be exact — for a couple of months while doing some Marine Corps stuff up around Lake Isabella.
I’m not sure what “facts on the ground” you think are so bad there, but I loved the place.
Gene, take a drive up that paradise know as the Central Valley. Ahh … the joys of diversity. Just like a libertarian. Never let the facts on the ground get in the way of your tidy ideology.
Anti-immigrant campaigns actually increase unemployment in California, which is dependent on immigrant labor for its agricultural bounty.
If workers are afraid to come to California, the crops don’t get picked, and this leads to unemployment among truck drivers, warehouse workers and people all down the chain of the produce business.
Virgil Goode’s policies are not goode for California.
It must be an embarrassment to the Constitution Party to have nominated a presidential candidate who has so obviously never bothered to read the fucking thing.