Ethnic Cleansing or "Amnesty" (by Orson Scott Card)

[EveningStar]

Orson Scott Card
Rhinotimes.com Greensboro
August 30, 2007

So the election grows closer, and it's time to satisfy all those people who have been demanding that we put a stop to illegal immigration. The failure of the so-called "amnesty bill" leaves the government no choice other than expulsion of anyone without papers.

The National Guard is activated and the city and state police forces are nationalized. Sweeps of Hispanic neighborhoods round up all the Spanish-speaking people with brown skin and sort them out according to who has the right documentation.

Six million of them are found to be illegal immigrants.

They are loaded into buses, trucks, cattle cars and transported to the Mexican border. It's all handled very humanely – they're well fed on the way, and we pay the Mexican government a hundred dollars per returnee to pay for their return to their homes. That's $600 million, but it's so worth it...Full article and reader comments (http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-08-30&-token.story=161535.112113&-token.subpub=)

A lot of people are not going to like this article.

[DoctorDoom]

Card writes great SF. His politics are oherwise.

[EveningStar]

Card writes great SF. His politics are oherwise.
I agree on both counts but at least he's a pro-Bush Democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Personal_views

In this article, he resorted to hyperbole and strawman arguments.

[EveningStar]

Card pretty much tips his liberal hand in his semi-autobiographical novel, Lost Boys.

[PaulRevere]

If the US cracks down on businesses hiring illegals, the illegals will have to go home on their own. No troops, police, theater drama on world TV will be seen, no cost to taxpayers.

Just like in your kitchen - clean up the corrupt mess and the cock roaches go away.

[nene]

We have an illegal immigration problem in this country because of two reasons:

1. Businesses that employ illegals have created a demand for them.

2. The federal government has allowed illegal immigration to continue with little constraint.

I don't blame the illegals for trying to find a better way of life. That does not mean I support them. Seems to me, this problem is our own doing.

I don't support building a fence or mass expulsion from this country. I used to, but after much thought I've changed my views. If illegals were good enough to be employed here though it was against the law, then they are good enough to stay here now that they've made a life for themselves.

Illegal immigration must be stopped. As has been often repeated, this process should not be too difficult. Give the ones that are here a way of remaining here legally. They are people, adults and children. They are here because of us. They should not have to be the only ones that must pay. If tears are to be shed, let them be shed by ALL involved. Everything else smacks of hypocrisy.

"What part of illegal don't you understand?", I always hear being asked. It's nothing but sanctimonious bullshit.

Let's be clear, I oppose illegal immigration. But it turns out that President Bush may have been right all along...again.

[maxparrish]

Orson Scott Card
Rhinotimes.com Greensboro
August 30, 2007

Full article and reader comments (http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-08-30&-token.story=161535.112113&-token.subpub=)

A lot of people are not going to like this article.

Nope, I did not. My first objection is that it fails as prognostication and as a soap opera scenereo - it was both unrealistic AND insufficiently melodramatic. A realist projection is one that simply requires employers to verify citizenship through a tamper proof SS ID card and a national database - then they will self deport. NO ONE of stature has suggested 'a roundup' in urban nieghborhoods (although Eisenhower did a farm roundup and got 3 million illegals to flee in the 1950s). So he loses points on being dim.

A melodramatic (but at least technically feasible) view would be: when criminals are arrested they are checked for their immigration status...illegal aliens are shipped to border camps. Others are arrested at 'day labor' gatherings, in agriculture camps, in slaughterhouses, at resteraunts. Soon railroad cars are filled with illegals heading to border camps, and millions of others who can't find work are fleeing home or to sanctuary cities. Those caught (perhaps 10 percent of the adults, 2 million) are convicted under current federal law and made to break rocks for a couple of years. These orange jump suited prisoners on chain gangs are made to build a 2000 mile security wall. Those attempting to flee may be occasionally shot, much to the rage of the ACLU.

The Supreme Court Criminal 5 will declare border protection for the Republic to be illegal, and demand the release all those captured - President Thompson will ignore them (as did Jackson). In the meantime, illegal hispanics will riot in urban centers, and City centers in places like LA (and small towns already over-run by illegals) will be cleared out with troops and blood. Congress will demand the impeachment of the President for this outrage - and...who knows...martial law?

Eventually President Thompson will seal the border, and the illegals in camps sent home. He will resign in disgrace, perhaps impeached and convicted, but not till his job is done. And even critics will whisper, behind closed doors, "He should not have done it...but thank god he did".

Future generations may thank him, as realistic numbers of skilled and talented immigrants come to America, enriching our economy and culture...while 1/2 our prison population is gone.

Now who likes that?

[Timberwolf]

The Republican spokesman is adamant – he looks so good on camera when he says, "America does not exist to be a safety valve for the failures of the Mexican economy."
That's about the only thing he wrote that makes sense and (though, as written, this is not what HE believes).

He's a liberal blowhard who is fairly adept at fantasy. He'd likely make a good living writing fiction, if what I just read is any indication of his ability to put imaginary things on paper.

[maxparrish]

We have an illegal immigration problem in this country because of two reasons:

1. Businesses that employ illegals have created a demand for them.

More accurately, some business want illegals, and employ them when they can pay them lower wages than domestic labor (even below minimum).

2. The federal government has allowed illegal immigration to continue with little constraint.

Some parts of the federal government have enforced some law, other parts have not. The parts on the border generally do enforce the law, the parts responsible for interior enforcement (H.Security, SSecurity, etc.) have not.

I don't blame the illegals for trying to find a better way of life. That does not mean I support them. Seems to me, this problem is our own doing.

I don't blame them either. Seems to me though, it is self evident that they are responsible for knowingly violating our borders and evading capture...just as much as those who ignore their VISA limits and stay here illegally. The ineffectualness of much our system to capture wrong doers does not make wrong doing legitimate....not anymore than the fact that only a small percentage of those cheating on taxes are actually caught makes cheating legitimate.

I don't support building a fence or mass expulsion from this country. I used to, but after much thought I've changed my views. This shows your first argument to be dishonest. You say 'its our problem' and our fault because we don't enforce the law and then when we we respond with serious enforcement proposals you object and WANT to keep illegals as a problem. In other words, your simply looking for excuses to keep illegals here. If its "our problem" then let's remove the problem.

Tsk tsk...nice try.

If illegals were good enough to be employed here though it was against the law, then they are good enough to stay here now that they've made a life for themselves.

So if one is good enough to break the law for a period of time, and accumulate illegal proceeds in a conspiracy with another who provided the money and also broke the law, then they are good enough to continue to break the law in a conspiracy and keep the loot - after all, what if the criminals have built a life for themselves. Why HECK, all criminals ought to be given an amnesty on the grounds of compassion.

ROFLOL...surely you see the moral vapidness of that legal proposition?

Illegal immigration must be stopped. Oh sure :limp: , I really believe you. You oppose strong enforcement then claim you want to stop illegal immigration. Do you write copy for Nancy Pelosi?

As has been often repeated, this process should not be too difficult. Give the ones that are here a way of remaining here legally. They are people, adults and children. They are here because of us. They should not have to be the only ones that must pay. If tears are to be shed, let them be shed by ALL involved. Everything else smacks of hypocrisy.

In other words, give those who have broken the law keep the loot, and give them amnesty. And not only give them amnesty, let them keep their earnings, but don't enforce the law and send them home and lets make sure that others who are waiting get screwed. Ugh ya, we can all see the justice in that. :sad:

It was their choice to come. But if it is "our fault" then I am more than happy to make them whole; i.e. I am more than happy to rectify the HORRIBLE thing we have done in drawing them from heavenly Mexico and send them back home, stripped of their high American wages. But somehow I think your argument is just another dash of disingeniousness...

"What part of illegal don't you understand?", I always hear being asked. It's nothing but sanctimonious bullshit. Well, other than calling the question "Bullshit", why not answer it...or does it elude you?

Let's be clear, I oppose illegal immigration. But it turns out that President Bush may have been right all along...again.

I am sure you oppose illegal immigration as much as Bill Clinton opposes promiscuity, and George Bush believes in American soveriegnty.

[ThomasMore]

Reality is what IS.

Perception is how people see it. Sometimes perceptions are spun, deliberately or otherwise.

Card confuses perception with reality, and argues that our actions should be governed by others' perceptions, and not the underlying reality.

Illegal aliens belong to THIS generation; they committed the acts of illegal entry and illegal residence. This does not compare with generations-old or centuries-old ethnic conflicts. The US borders are settled by war and treaty. What the rightful borders are is not reasonably in dispute; historically, every nation had different borders. That fact does not destroy a government's sovereignty within its borders; something Card implicitly does.

Every illegal alien committed one or more willfully unlawful acts. Each KNOWS he is here without the sanction of law and is subject to deportation.

Arguments to the contrary merely try to leverage the fact of the illegals' (unlawful) presence into a RIGHT of presence: I have a right to be here because I am here. It is a lie. Period.

[nene]

More accurately, some business want illegals, and employ them when they can pay them lower wages than domestic labor (even below minimum).
Obviously, it goes without saying that not all businesses hire illegals.

Some parts of the federal government have enforced some law, other parts have not. The parts on the border generally do enforce the law, the parts responsible for interior enforcement (H.Security, SSecurity, etc.) have not.
Obviously, it goes without saying that not all governmental agencies failed to enforce the law.

I don't blame them either. Seems to me though, they are responsible for knowing violating our borders and evading capture...just as those who ignore their VISA limits and stay illegally. The ineffectualness of much our system to capture wrong doers does not make their wrong doing legitimate....not anymore than the fact that only a small percentage of those cheating on taxes are actually caught makes cheating okay.More accurately the refusal of our government to deal with illegal immigration has helped to create the mess we are in. I never stated that this legitimizes what illegals are doing. I only state the government and businesses are complicit in this illegal activity. But we are not prepared to punish these entities to the degree that we are ready to punish the illegals.

This shows your first argument to be dishonest. You say 'its our problem' and our fault because we don't enforce the law and then when we we respond with serious enforcement proposals you also object and WANT to keep illegals as a problem. In other words, your simply looking for excuses to keep illegals here and gropping for excuses to 'blame' those who want enforcement of the law.Nope, what it does show is that you are not reading carefully. I support enforcement. I oppose building a fence because I believe it is not what we need. I oppose kicking 12+ million people out of this country. Here is a reality check, we will never kick out these people. What we can do is enforce the laws and create an environment where people will no longer want to come to this country illegaly.

So if one is good enough to break the law for a period of time, and accumulate illegal proceeds in a conspiracy with another who provided the money, then they are good enough to continue to break the law in a conspiracy and keep the loot - after all, what if the criminal has built a life for himself. Why HECK, the criminal ought to be given an amnesty on the grounds of compassion.
ROFLOL...surely you see the moral vapidness of that proposition?Sure, but it is not what I suggested.

Oh sure , I really believe you. You oppose strong enforcement then claim you want to stop illegal immigration. Do you write copy for Nancy Pelosi?Again, you are not reading carefully. I support strong enforcement. But to suggest that strong enforcement should entail the removal of 12+ million people is to be detached from reality.

In other words, give those who have broken the law and now have the loot keep the loot, and given them amnesty. And not only give them amnesty, let them keep their earnings, but don't send them home and lets make sure that others who are waiting get screwed. Ugh ya, we can all see the justice in that.Kicking all these people and not adequately punishing those in this country that are complicit in this criminal activity is NOT justice. Surely you are not calling the prosecution of every business that has hired and profited from illegal immigrants? I don't want that either. I could maybe go along with what you suggest if this were part of it because then it would be justice. However since I don't dwell in fantasy as you seem to do, I call for dealing with the problem in a realistic manner and move forward.

But somehow I think your argument is just another dash of disingeniousness...Then don't think because it has repeatedly led you to erroneous conclusions.

I am sure you oppose illegal immigration as much as Bill Clinton opposes promiscuity.*crickets chirping*

[DoctorDoom]

Sorry, guy, but Max is one of FC's real thinkers. You're a petulant Chihuahua yipping and yapping at a Rottweiler. I recommend backing away while your ass is still intact.

[EveningStar]

He'd likely make a good living writing fiction...
He already has. Ender's Game is one of the finest novels written in any genre.

[EveningStar]

"What part of illegal don't you understand?", I always hear being asked. It's nothing but sanctimonious bullshit.
Actually, I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask. I don't find it to be the least bit sanctimonious.

[EveningStar]

If the US cracks down on businesses hiring illegals, the illegals will have to go home on their own...
That won't happen to any great extent. Both Democrats and Republicans own businesses and both contribute $$$ to politicians.

[ThomasMore]

That won't happen to any great extent. Both Democrats and Republicans own businesses and both contribute $$$ to politicians.

ES, I agree that that is a problem, and one of the real deterrents to reform. But it can be defeated by an active grassroots.

[maxparrish]

...the refusal of our government to deal with illegal immigration has helped to create the mess we are in. I never stated that this legitimizes what illegals are doing. I only state the government and businesses are complicit in this illegal activity. But we are not prepared to punish these entities to the degree that we are ready to punish the illegals.

You ascribed the current law breaking as solely due to having created "our own problem", implying no culpability to the criminal. Such an implication and excuse is noxious. Glad to see you are not excusing the criminal.

And, by the way, we are not prepared to enforce or punish either criminal party to the full extent of the law.

...you are not reading carefully. I support enforcement. I oppose building a fence because I believe it is not what we need. I oppose kicking 12+ million people out of this country. Here is a reality check...

So you don't support preventing illegal border crossings via serious border enforcement, and we don't need to arrest and deport illegal resident aliens via serious internal enforcement BUT, by golly, rest assured YOU support enforcing the law!

Look, this kind of juvenile horse poo is dished out daily by Washington politicos - parody can be amusing but enough already.

we will never kick out these people. I cannot think of a single politician, opinion leader, think tank recommendation, Congressional proposal, or commenter that has suggest a program of "kicking out" 12 million people (actually 17 or more million). This unimaginative "argument" has been obligatory 'open borders' straw man dragged out of the barn by every open borders advocate. Toss it back in nene, no need (or respect) for it here.

What we can do is enforce the laws and create an environment where people will no longer want to come to this country illegaly.

...I support strong enforcement. But to suggest that strong enforcement should entail the removal of 12+ million people is to be detached from reality.

Posh lad, don't be so intentionally crabbed in your thinking, permit yourself to see the obvious. "What we can do is enforce the laws and create an environment where people will no longer want to come or want to stay in this country illegally.

Now, with a bit of imagination, we can see that:

- Illegals don't want to "come" across a border with double 20 foot tall security walls & fencing, seperated by a patrolled road, guarded by men and attack dogs, searchlights, and less restrictive rules on the use of firearms.

- Illegals don't want to "stay" in a country where they cannot find work because a tamper proof SS card and employment check system is required of all employers AND employers are seriously fined.

- Illegals don't want to "stay" in the same country if medical services, food stamps, and the like are denied to them.

- Illegals don't want to "stay" in the same country if there is a chance that they will be caught and sent to prison to do hard time, or sent to open air detention tent camps and work gangs on the border via Maricopa County's fine example.

Now THAT is "strong enforcement" that discourages illegals from coming or staying.

Surely you are not calling the prosecution of every business that has hired and profited from illegal immigrants? Yes, gasp, I am calling for enforcement of the LAW!

Specifically, I am calling for a new check system to verify a worker's legal status, and the prosecution of every business that hires illegals AFTER a new system is in place.

And I am also for every one of those businesses paying for any and all social services used by their employees during or after their employment.

However since I don't dwell in fantasy as you seem to do, I call for dealing with the problem in a realistic manner and move forward.

For those who are opposed to changing current realities, then seriously enforcing the law must be characterized as a "dwelling on a fantasy".

Now nene, unless you get serious you will have to run along. :limp:

[buzzthepug!]

What Max Parrish said.

Is it racist to say that illegals lower one's property rate? I'm for deporting anyone that lowers a decent person's property value.

The employers that hire illegals at sub-standard rates are super greedy. They (the employers) should be fined enormously and possibly serve prison time for good measure. Or sent to the front lines in Iraq to make amends for damaging America with employing diseased, illiterate peasants.

[Rhino]

Rhinotimes.com

A lot of people are not going to like this article.Nope, I did not.Rhinotimes.com

Sounds like a good source though. :evilgrin:

[nene]

You ascribed the current law breaking as solely due to having created "our own problem", implying no culpability to the criminal. Such an implication and excuse is noxious. Glad to see you are not excusing the criminal.
Nope, I never stated that illegals are not culpable. I only stressed the point that culpabililty is shared. Something that is often ignored in this debate.
I cannot think of a single politician, opinion leader, think tank recommendation, Congressional proposal, or commenter that has suggest a program of "kicking out" 12 million people (actually 17 or more million). This unimaginative "argument" has been obligatory 'open borders' straw man dragged out of the barn by every open borders advocate. Toss it back in nene, no need (or respect) for it here.
That is exactly what many are calling for. I'll explain when I address your "imaginative" solutions below.

Posh lad, don't be so intentionally crabbed in your thinking, permit yourself to see the obvious.

"What we can do is enforce the laws and create an environment where people will no longer want to come or want to stay in this country illegally.
Now, with a bit of imagination, we can see that:

Illegals don't want to "come" across a border with double 20 foot tall security walls & fencing, seperated by a patrolled road, guarded by men and attack dogs, searchlights, and less restrictive rules on the use of firearms.

Illegals don't want to "stay" in a country where they cannot find work because a tamper proof SS card and employment check system is required of all employers AND employers are seriously fined.

Illegals don't want to "stay" in the same country if medical services, food stamps, and the like are denied to them.

Illegals don't want to "stay" in the same country if there is a chance that they will be caught and sent to prison to do hard time, or sent to open air detention tent camps and work gangs on the border via Maricopa County's fine example.

Now THAT is "strong enforcement" that discourages illegals from coming or staying.
I support all the above with the exception of the border fence...after a guest worker program is implemented. Otherwise the net effect will be that all illegals in this country that have established themselves will be punished severely whereas their employers merely will no longer be able to hire them. In other words, no punishment for the thousand upon thousands of employers. You call for creating a climate that will compel those that are here illegaly to leave. Net affect is the removal of 12+ million illegals, the very thing you claim is not being called for.

Specifically, I am calling for a new check system to verify a worker's legal status, and the prosecution of every business that hires illegals AFTER a new system is in place.
It is exactly this position that smacks of hypocrisy. Prosecute business owners AFTER a new system is place but apply pressures on illegals NOW so that they are compelled to leave. So an employer that has benefited from illegal labor for the last 30 years gets off free so long as they never commit this crime again. Yeah, that's justice.

And I am also for every one of those businesses paying for any and all social services used by their employees during or after their employment.
And what if those employees have not used social services?
Now nene, unless you get serious you will have to run along. No need to, it's been too easy.

[nene]

Sorry, guy, but Max is one of FC's real thinkers. You're a petulant Chihuahua yipping and yapping at a Rottweiler. I recommend backing away while your ass is still intact.You're how old again? Again with the Chihuahua and the yipping and the yapping and the Rottweiler that's about to de-ass the Chihuahua?

[nene]

I've come to think that President Bush has been right all along on the immigration issue.

[Wolfcounsel]

"And what if those employees have not used social services?" --nene

To hell with the scumbags. They spit in the face of every legal immigrant who has arrived here and done things the legal way. Boot their asses out of America whenever they are found. Their hard work does not impress me.

[The_Elucidator]

I've come to think that President Bush has been right all along on the immigration issue.

Incoming...... :biggrin:

[maxparrish]

Nope, I never stated that illegals are not culpable. I only stressed the point that culpability is shared. Something that is often ignored in this debate. As a practical matter, it has NEVER been ignored in this debate - one of the core issues has always been our inability and/or unwillingness to robustly enforce the law and those in our government who are determined to keep it that way.

Some want a nation of laws, some don't. Those that don't on this issue are the culpable miscreants (e.g. Graham, McCain, Bush). Perhaps you are right, perhaps their moral guilt and obstruction of justice that has caused "our problem" has been ignored...hmmm...or did you mean something else?

That is exactly what many are calling for. I'll explain when I address your "imaginative" solutions below. Rubbish. The last time nene...if 'many' are proposing "mass expulsion" and "kicking out millions" then I have yet to see any proof (more below).

I support all the above with the exception of the border fence...after a guest worker program is implemented. Otherwise the net effect will be that all illegals in this country that have established themselves will be punished severely whereas their employers merely will no longer be able to hire them. In other words, no punishment for the thousand upon thousands of employers.

Your confused. No one is being punished unless they break the law in the future, unless informing someone they are no longer privileged to break the law is, in nene land, an unfair 'punishment'. Gee, what a novel legal ploy...in nene land those who are made to obey the law (such as the legal overseas applicants for H-1b work visas) are actually being 'punished', as are their law abiding employers, because they can't break the law TOO!

LOL...

To underscore, my proposed "punishment" by insisting on obedience to the law would be applicable to both employees and employers, i.e.; I did not address punishment for anyone's past transgressions. Those that made profits, or made wages, via illegal labor for many years could keep their ill-gotten gains. However, businesses that once depended on illegal labor, and illegal alien labor itself, would no longer be allowed to break the law. True, this is NOT a punishment for either party, it is (actually) an amnesty for prior law-breaking.

Rest assured, I know what really bothers you that American businesses which employed illegal labor does not 'suffer' enough to your satisfaction. But employers get to stay because they are usually American citizens...while Mexican citizens are not. As this seems to be a bone in your throat. just what is it about sovereignty, the Constitution, the social compact, the US legal rights of citizens, and the law of nations that eludes you on this matter? I can simplify it: you see, American citizens live in America, Zimbabwe citizens live in Zimbabwe, and Mexican citizens live in Mexico...and people who want to live elsewhere get permission from host countries. See how it works?

Yes, I recognize that they (illegals of many nations) have illegally resided in this country and "established themselves" through illegal participation in American economic and social life (including using our education system and social services for near gratis), just as I recognize some employers are doing nicely with illegal labor. So what's your point, that those who have built a plump lifestyle based on cheating ought to have their law breaking made legal (just for them) by letting them stay and work for those employers?

On what moral basis do we give the equivalent of a 'future amnesty law' to legitimize and reward their past law breaking just because they have gotten used to their (illegally obtained) good life...YOU have to be kidding nene. Shame on you :shame:

You call for creating a climate that will compel those that are here illegally to leave. Net affect is the removal of 12+ million illegals, the very thing you claim is not being called for. Wrong. As I stated, no one is calling for "mass expulsion" by "kicking out" (your terms), which always conveys use of mass physical force to remove people. Many support (as I do) creating an economic climate which will encourage most of them to self-deport. The net effect will be a) illegals relocating themselves to their homes and b) enforcement of the law.

It is exactly this position that smacks of hypocrisy. Prosecute business owners AFTER a new system is place but apply pressures on illegals NOW so that they are compelled to leave. Sigh, your unthinking and reflexive partisan readings are getting a bit tiresome. Just THINK about it nene...

It is impossible to "apply pressure" for self-deportation OR prosecute employers until the federal government provides a system to check fraudulent SS cards. Almost all employers are given these cards (over 130,000 for one business in Illinois). But rest assured, I see nothing wrong, in the meantime, of raiding some high profile employers and punishing both parties. If the equity of that warms your heart...enjoy.

So an employer that has benefited from illegal labor for the last 30 years gets off free so long as they never commit this crime again. Yeah, that's justice. No more or less justice than that applied to the illegal employee (who could run back to Mexico to avoid prosecution). Now, if your fire-eyed demand for retro active justice demands going back to 1986 for both employer and employee, welcome aboard...but I methinks your just thoughtlessly venting to us for effect.

Being a bit more compassionate than you, I'd just as soon forgive all the law breakers for past crimes, end the lawbreaking by ending employment of illegals, enforce the law (which includes deportation, one way or another) and have the government employ all the tools necessary to shut down the border (including security fences, which ARE necessary and are good insurance).

That's justice, that's the law.

[maxparrish]

Orson Scott Card
Rhinotimes.com Greensboro
August 30, 2007

Full article and reader comments (http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-08-30&-token.story=161535.112113&-token.subpub=)

A lot of people are not going to like this article.

The article is a great example of an individual whose subtest scores would show highly skewed and divergent intellectual abilities - a kind of savant of at least average verbal abilities combined with reasoning at the level of a moron. If he were a 'she', it would clearly be a case of an XXX mutation.

Honestly, its hard to believe this person writes good fiction (well except that contained in his article).

[DoctorDoom]

You're how old again?65.002739726. And you are how old, goose boy?

I like the simile. But if you wish:

You're a gnat playing chicken with a 747. You're an ant on a jungle trail holding out its legs to trip an approaching elephant. You're a minnow taunting a shark.

You're out of your depth, boy. The kiddie pool is down the street.

[Kathy30]

A pox on those who don't blame the illegals for wanting a better life. They are the rotten core of a putrid problem. There is not a single robber or burglar who does not believe in their heart or hearts that they deserve to break the law because they want something the victim has. Yes illegals want a better life. Preferably yours. They want your job, your bank account, your house, your wife, daughters and dogs. Identity theft is the most popular crime with illegals because it comes with so many goodies.

I learned all about the better life that illegals want when one carjacked me and his defense was he wanted a better life, so he was stealing cars in California and selling them in mexico. As he cried to the judge, he was trying to get enough money to start a family business and bring his relatives here. Those are the solid values people those who buy into the "better life" claptrap want in this country.

They should be strung up right along with the rest of the traitors.

[Rhino]

Off with their heads!!!

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice29a.gif

[maxparrish]

Six months of hard labor in Maricopa County's tent jail is fine with me. Two years for a second offense, and life in Angola for a third.

[Rhino]

Saw something on that tent city the other day. Almost all the inmates in it are there at their own request because it gets them time off their sentences.

[buzzthepug!]

What Kathy said.

These good for nothing leftist/lib/marxists want your life and my life.

This is really making me mental. There is no good reason big military vehicles don't show up at these illegal immigration identity/life-stealing rallies in Southern California and push the peasants back over the border to Mexico at 2 miles/hour.

Not to sound whiney but why do I need to suffer fools?

[JOHN D]

Let's be clear, I oppose illegal immigration. But it turns out that President Bush may have been right all along...again.

God! Another one. :rolleyes:

[nene]

As a practical matter, it has NEVER been ignored in this debate - one of the core issues has always been our inability and/or unwillingness to robustly enforce the law and those in our government who are determined to keep it that way.
Sure it has. It has ALWAYS been ignored. Sure, we recognize that businesses are complicit in the illegal immigration problem but we don't call for punishing them for their past criminality.
Some want a nation of laws, some don't. Those that don't on this issue are the culpable miscreants (e.g. Graham, McCain, Bush). Perhaps you are right, perhaps their moral guilt and obstruction of justice that has caused "our problem" has been ignored...hmmm...or did you mean something else?Please, do you hear yourself? You're calling President Bush a miscreant. Your calling a war hero like McCain a miscreant. Sure the President has done some things that I don't agree with, but a miscreant? McCain at times seems to have lost his mind but he certainly is no miscreant. The man has bled for this country. He deserves some respect.
But whatever floats you boat...

Rubbish. The last time nene...if 'many' are proposing "mass expulsion" and "kicking out millions" then I have yet to see any proof (more below).If today we invoke a policy whereby an illegal immigrant that has established a home in this country for years is forced to relocate back to Mexico then for all practical purposes it is expulsion. You're arguing semantics.

Your confused. No one is being punished unless they break the law in the future, unless informing someone they are no longer privileged to break the law is, in nene land, an unfair 'punishment'. Gee, what a novel legal ploy...in nene land those who are made to obey the law (such as the legal overseas applicants for H-1b work visas) are actually being 'punished', as are their law abiding employers, because they can't break the law TOO!Again you are delving into fantasy. You argument is that forcing the 12+ million people to go back where they came from is not punishment. It most certainly is. Many of these people have established roots in this country. They were allowed to stay here. They were encouraged to stay here. Illegal immigration was promoted by businesses and backed by the federal government for decades. NOW, the battle cry is to get rid of all the illegals and how this will affect them on a personal basis is irrelevant. I think it is relevant.

To underscore, my proposed "punishment" by insisting on obedience to the law would be applicable to both employees and employers, i.e.; I did not address punishment for anyone's past transgressions. Those that made profits, or made wages, via illegal labor for many years could keep their ill-gotten gains. However, businesses that once depended on illegal labor, and illegal alien labor itself, would no longer be allowed to break the law. True, this is NOT a punishment for either party, it is (actually) an amnesty for prior law-breaking.Only in maxy max land can this be construed as amnesty for the illegals. You are right it is amnesty for businesses. See you do favor and amnesty bill...but not for illegals. As I stated above, it is punishing the illegal immigrant.

Rest assured, I know what really bothers you that American businesses which employed illegal labor does not 'suffer' enough to your satisfaction. But employers get to stay because they are usually American citizens...while Mexican citizens are not. As this seems to be a bone in your throat. just what is it about sovereignty, the Constitution, the social compact, the US legal rights of citizens, and the law of nations that eludes you on this matter? I can simplify it: you see, American citizens live in America, Zimbabwe citizens live in Zimbabwe, and Mexican citizens live in Mexico...and people who want to live elsewhere get permission from host countries. See how it works?Rest assured, judging from the above you have NO idea what really bothers me. As I stated previously, I favor no punishment. We need to start over and prevent any further illegal immigration. We need to analyze each illegal immigrant and get rid of all criminals and those that refuse to work. It goes without saying, but I will (because undoubtedly someone will cry "BUT THEY ARE CRIMINALS BY VIRTUE THAT THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALY! WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?), that by criminals I mean those that have broke laws other than illegaly trespassing into the U.S.

On what moral basis do we give the equivalent of a 'future amnesty law' to legitimize and reward their past law breaking just because they have gotten used to their (illegally obtained) good life...YOU have to be kidding nene. Shame on you Who is being rewarded? Seems to me nobody is being punished.

Wrong. As I stated, no one is calling for "mass expulsion" by "kicking out" (your terms), which always conveys use of mass physical force to remove people. Many support (as I do) creating an economic climate which will encourage most of them to self-deport. The net effect will be a) illegals relocating themselves to their homes and b) enforcement of the law. Yes and if life were that simple we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

No more or less justice than that applied to the illegal employee (who could run back to Mexico to avoid prosecution). Now, if your fire-eyed demand for retro active justice demands going back to 1986 for both employer and employee, welcome aboard...but I methinks your just thoughtlessly venting to us for effect.Again your thinking is leading you astray.

[nene]

65.002739726. And you are how old, goose boy?

I like the simile. But if you wish:

You're a gnat playing chicken with a 747. You're an ant on a jungle trail holding out its legs to trip an approaching elephant. You're a minnow taunting a shark.

You're out of your depth, boy. The kiddie pool is down the street.

Going to be 40 soon, old goat.

I'm not familiar with your similes as they do not compare two unlike things and do not use the words "as" or "like".

For example::biggrin:

You're as common as dirt.

You're as crazy as a loon.

You're as fat as a pig.

You're as obstinate as a mule.

You're as slow as molasses.

You're as stubborn as a mule.

You're as thick as brick.

[maxparrish]

...We recognize that businesses are complicit in the illegal immigration problem but we don't call for punishing them for their past criminality. No one is calling for ANYONE's prior violations of the law to be punished. The overwhelming majority of Americans are calling for the CURRENT law to be enforced and punishment to be exacted for BOTH employers and employees on future violations.

Move on.

...If today we invoke a policy whereby an illegal immigrant that has established a home in this country for years is forced to relocate back to Mexico then for all practical purposes it is expulsion. You're arguing semantics.
The implied lurid idea of mass arrest, detention, etc, by "expulsion" and "kicking out" millions of illegals is not necessary and has not been proposed by anyone (of stature). Drying up sources of income to illegals to pressure their return to their homelands has been proposed, and IS one part of a robust solution (the other being the border fence).

Move on.

... You argument is that forcing the 12+ million people to go back where they came from is not punishment. It most certainly is.
Balderdash, it 'most certainly' is not!

Your stuck in legal ignorance and (sadly) moral vacuity. So, one last time, a legal/ & moral tutorial for the willfully obtuse (or miscreant):

- Those that enter and stay in the United States, without a legal VISA (or overstay their VISA), are guilty of civil and/or criminal act. Those that continue to stay, are in continual violation of the law.

- Punishment is "a penalty imposed for wrongdoing". And as anyone with a minimal exposure to the law will inform you, when a court issues an order to comply with the law it is not a punishment. It is NOT a punishment when a judge orders a person to: return illegally obtained property to a civil litigant or a crime victim; a person is ordered to stay 100 yards away from another person or event; a person is ordered to pay current or back taxes; a person is ordered to leave the country (deported); or a person is ordered to cease acting in any other unlawful manner. THESE are NOT penalties for an actual wrongdoing, these are orders to prevent current or future wrongdoing (or any gain/profit from it)!

- Now if the person refuses, or is found to have committed a criminal act in gaining entry to the United States then that "illegal" can be punished by fines and/or imprisonment up to six months. In that case, THOSE nene, are PUNISHMENTS.

CONCLUSION: They are NOT being punished for their crimes, they are being ordered (or influenced) go back home...and to STOP violating the law.

Many of these people have established roots in this country. They were allowed to stay here. They were encouraged to stay here. Illegal immigration was promoted by businesses and backed by the federal government for decades....

... As I stated above, it is punishing the illegal immigrant.

,,,It goes without saying, but I will (because undoubtedly someone will cry "BUT THEY ARE CRIMINALS BY VIRTUE THAT THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY! WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?), that by criminals I mean those that have broke laws other than illegally trespassing into the U.S.
No doubt making someone return to their country of origin can be a disruptive move, just their original move to the US may have been disruptive. It might even cause hardship because an illegal resident might have to go back to earning low wages, or no longer able to get US government paid medical medical treatment, or be schooled by the States.

So what? By what right do they have to keep, let alone keep receiving more of that which they unjustly obtained?

Illegals have spent many years illegally earning wealth, an opportunity DENIED to millions of legal applicants who have or are waiting in other countries. These illegals have accumulated property, education, medical care, etc. and they have already benefited UNJUSTLY, and NO ONE will demand return of those benefits. These law breakers can take their loot and property sale proceeds and return to their country as 'rich' men by their country's standards - beyond their countryman's wildest dreams.

None the less, you NOT only want to let the lawbreaker keep their ill-gotten gains...your argument is that they have GOTTEN USED TO the good life illegally obtained, and want them to CONTINUE to be allowed to profit and BE REWARDED FOR IT.

Your intellectual (and emotional) error stems from an assumption just because someone suffers hardship by being told "no, you can't break the law" they are being punished.

Perhaps you don't understand that when an illegal choses to avoid hardship (by sneaking into the US and working under false papers) he is NOT escaping anyone's "punishment", he is breaking American law and jumping the system to beat out others who are legally waiting.

When that illegal is caught cheating and sent back, he is NOT being punished, he is being made to obey the rules for the world's 6.7 billion people.

Yes, the mere fact that we do not want most of the 3rd world to live in the US does cause hardship for 100,000,000s , but we are NOT "punishing them" - we are simply denying them access to what is ours...our home.

Why does this elude you? Why are you in obtuse denial?

[Rhino]

The implied lurid idea of mass arrest, detention, etc, by "expulsion" and "kicking out" millions of illegals is not necessary and has not been proposed by anyone.Huh? Lot's of people have proposed this. Unfortunately these proposals don't get very far. Maybe that's what you meant.

[maxparrish]

Huh? Lot's of people have proposed this. Unfortunately these proposals don't get very far. Maybe that's what you meant. I reworded it slightly to clarify. As I mentioned earlier, no one of stature (Congress person, think tank, commentator, etc.) has proposed mass arrests and deportation. To "rail" that we cannot rid ourselves of 12 million illegals by "expulsion" is to set up a strawman.

Having said that, many ordinary Americans call for mass arrests. I see nothing too wrong with it (and like the idea) - but it is not a serious element of the debate.

[Rhino]

The difference is politics, not opinion. Some of those folks in Washington have indeed mentioned it, but none have seriously proposed it. However, that isn't because they believe in it any less than the ordinary Americans who call for it. It's because they know the idea would never fly in Washington, and, unlike those ordinary Americans, they have to play their political games.

[nene]

For the most part I think we are repeating ourselves. Your arguments are the same as before. My rebuttals will be likewise. There is nothing to be gained by repeating myself.

I will however address your mental and moral defecation below:

Your stuck in legal ignorance and (sadly) moral vacuity. So, one last time, a legal/ & moral tutorial for the willfully obtuse (or miscreant):
Que bruto eres. The only tutorial that you are qualified to give is how to insult those you debate with when your verbose arguments remain ineffectual. That is your short coming, not mine. At your age, you should know better. But alas, age and wisdom are not mutually inclusive as you have so aptly demonstrated. But do continue seeing as you are one of FC's "real thinkers". Laughable really.

[Seabee]

Orson Scott Card, this is the guy who wrote "Ender's Game," isnt it?

[Kathy30]

Amnesty benefits the employers who get to continue to cheat Americans out of jobs, benefits and a decent wage. You want amnesty, let's see, the plan is amnesty for illegals, amnesty for the employers who hire them. There's an amnesty that's never been suggested. That's amnesty for all those who owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to the IRS because of a couple of hundred people using their SSN. How about credit card amnesty for all those who have had their identities used to open up credit accounts that have been skipped out on long ago? Of course you won't even see these things mentioned much less given serious discussion. Of course the victims of illegals, those killed by their cultural imperitive toward drunk driving will never get amnesty. The dead victims because the illegal was afraid of being found out will never get amnesty. Every person who has personally been victimized by illegals and those disgusting putrid pusboils who support them will never get amnesty.

Cut these criminals off from every benefit. Take them out of the schools, workplaces, hospitals, nursing homes, homeless shelters, day labor centers, load them on boxcars, buses, limousines if necessary and send them HOME.

[BabyBeastie]

Did anyone really read all of that article? From what I was able to read before I got bored, there is no mention of any other illegal immigrants from Canada, Russia, Ireland, the Middle East, etc. that run around out here. It's not just a Mexican issue, plus he uses a lot of specious arguments. The author of the article makes it seem like a difficult fix, but it really isn't.

We start with the language by using English only. Has anyone seen the California driver's license tests, voting guides or ATMs? They accomodate several different languages, not just Spanish. You cannot have unity accomodating "50" different languages in a single nation.