Amnesty for illegal immigrants will not happen this time.....................

Jim Macklin blurted:
m...
I don't want
bribery, graft and oligarchy which are the rule south of the
USA.


"Jose" wrote in message
That's not the rule here? Check out the DC area.

Recently, Jim Macklin posted:

Maybe it is, but we do occasionally have a trial, even in
DC.

Can you say "detainees"? I knew you could!

Neil

Morgans:
So, Jose, what are we going to do, in our schools? How many languages are we going to require our teachers to teach in?

That is a red herring which addresses a different question.

Americans need to learn a foreign language. It opens many doors and is
part of a well rounded education. This is not an accomodation for
aliens, it is just good cultural sense. When you travel, you should not
expect foreigners to speak English for you. Aliens entering the US
(legally or illegally) should learn English. They should not expect us
to accomodate them any more than we should expect to be accomodated in
Germany or Hungary by English speaking storekeepers. This is a seperate
issue and a common courtesy. It works both ways.

Larry:
These American Citizens did nothing wrong. (You did say that you wanted it to be
retroactive).

Perhaps in the majority of cases that is true. But the law that
grants those born in the US US citizenship fails to address the point,
and its drafters probably overlooked the incentive it would cause if
it included those born to women who have entered the country
illegally. That needs to be fixed.

Fails to address what point? As to incentive, our ancestors (of not too
many generations ago) entered this Indian nation illegally too. We just
about wiped the natives out in our self-rightousness, and now we want to
prevent others from doing the same to us? On what moral grounds?

Also Larry:
What is
special about =children= of legitimate citizens that they should be
citizens too, while children (born here) of foreigners (including
travellers or illegal immigrants) should not?
The family who nurtures and educates these children is ostensibly law
abiding and will instill that character trait in their offspring;
those who commit a crime to enter the US have patently indicated their
willingness to flout US law, and do not deserve the benefit of it.

The assumption that legitimate citizens are law-abiding is laughable.
Shall we disenfranchise the children of =all= who commit a crime?
Especially capital crimes? Certainly this is worse than failure to
submit paperwork for citizenship while working hard at low wages doing
things that Americans wouldn't be caught dead doing.

ibid:
We are a country made up of a
diverse mix of people, and thus are subject to cultural fragmentation
pressure already.

And this makes us a strong nation.

To encourage immigrants not to learn the language
spoken in the US...

I am not encouraging that. They should learn English for the same
reasons we should learn French or Chinese.

At any rate, I fail to appreciate how enlightening the US citizenry
will have any impact on our failure to police our borders.

Policing our borders is not the problem (although it does contribute to
some problems). Enlightening the US citizenry may point this up. The
ADIZ is a form of policing a border too, it is equally silly, for
similar (underlying) reasons.

Websurf...:
However, a nation must have one official language. Observe Canada...

Canada has two official languages. That's not the same as having none.
And yes, I imagine it's a bit of a problem for them, but I'm not
Canadian so I don't really know how much of an impact it has, nor
whether it is true that the French stuff is primarily for a small group
in Quebec.

When there is =no= official language, there is no mandate for multple
languages. The government can choose whichever one it wants, based on
the will of the populace. Why is that not good enough?

Especially in a real melting pot like California.

The whole country was a melting pot once. We got by without an
'official' language fine. What's different now?

It is said that one difference is the unwillingness of new foreigners
(legal ones too) to learn new ways, and to discard old ways. I don't
know whether this is actually true, or merely xenophobic propaganda, and
I certainly don't think that foreigners should dicard old ways. Their
cultural (and language) heritage enrichens us all. I do think they
should learn the new ways (and languages) if they wish to live here.
But an "official language" doesn't address this.

What would address this is a change in our policy that every child needs
to be accomodated, and has no responsibility to accomodate himself.
This works for language, disability, religion, attitude, and anything
that can get more dollars into some district. And the underlying issue
is not with language or education, it is with money and pork.

And because this is r.a.p, in how many languages should the FARs be
published?

Does it matter? Can anybody read the excuse for English in which they
are written now? g,d

Jose




--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Hey Larry, I thought you VERY VERY were opposed to OT posting.

The Monk

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:22:45 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Larry:
These American Citizens did nothing wrong. (You did say that you wanted it to be
retroactive).

Perhaps in the majority of cases that is true. But the law that
grants those born in the US US citizenship fails to address the point,
and its drafters probably overlooked the incentive it would cause if
it included those born to women who have entered the country
illegally. That needs to be fixed.

Fails to address what point?

The point that the law permits the offspring of those who have
_criminally_ entered the US to be considered US citizens. I would
expect that Congress did not consider illegal aliens when that
provision of law was drafted.

As to incentive, our ancestors (of not too
many generations ago) entered this Indian nation illegally too.

Please cite the law which you assert was broken.

My ancestors entered this country legally through Ellis Island.

We just
about wiped the natives out in our self-rightousness, and now we want to
prevent others from doing the same to us? On what moral grounds?

Your attempt to drag the immoral slaughter of native Americans by
European immigrants into this discussion is a reach too far for me.

Also Larry:
What is
special about =children= of legitimate citizens that they should be
citizens too, while children (born here) of foreigners (including
travellers or illegal immigrants) should not?
The family who nurtures and educates these children is ostensibly law
abiding and will instill that character trait in their offspring;
those who commit a crime to enter the US have patently indicated their
willingness to flout US law, and do not deserve the benefit of it.

The assumption that legitimate citizens are law-abiding is laughable.

The assumption that those who cross the US border illegally are
criminals is without question.

Shall we disenfranchise the children of =all= who commit a crime?

No. We must remove the incentive to illegal immigration by rescinding
the law that grants US citizenship to those born in the US as a result
of their mothers _illegal_ immigration into the US.

Especially capital crimes? Certainly this is worse than failure to
submit paperwork for citizenship while working hard at low wages doing
things that Americans wouldn't be caught dead doing.

I'm glad you raised the question of illegal immigrants doing work US
citizens won't do; that argument is a farce.

In the '60s and '70s the construction trades were filled with US
citizens (more than 80% of the work was performed by citizens). They
entered apprentice training, received a decent wage, and paid their
withholding taxes.

Now the building trades are dominated by illegal aliens who have no
training, work for peanuts, and are paid cash without contributing to
Social Security or Workers Compensation. They have taken good jobs
away from Americans, and reduced the quality of workmanship. Today
trained, SS and WC paying, union workers in the building trades
account for about 20% of those on the job.

Farm work is, and always has been, another matter. Those workers are
not needed in the Winter, and should migrate back home then.

The point is, if the illegal alien workers were paying into Social
Security and Workers Comp., they would price themselves out of the
labor market, and permit wages to rise to the point where US citizens
would consider working those jobs.

It is only through (further) flouting of US employment laws that
illegal aliens are able to secure employment in the US. Illegal
aliens are crooks, and should be dealt with as any criminals. If that
isn't true, our entire justice system should be ignored.

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:37:13 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

Now the building trades are dominated by illegal aliens who have no
training, work for peanuts, and are paid cash without contributing to
Social Security or Workers Compensation.

... who gives them these jobs? Lawa abiding American companies?

They have taken good jobs
^^^^
again, American companies have taken them. [1]

away from Americans, and reduced the quality of workmanship. Today
trained, SS and WC paying, union workers in the building trades
account for about 20% of those on the job.

#m

[1] no US bashing here; this is true for almost every country.
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html

Your attempt to drag the immoral slaughter of native Americans by
European immigrants into this discussion is a reach too far for me.

We invaded their nations, took over, and formed this one. Now we are
opposed to others "invading" ours?

Now the building trades are dominated by illegal aliens who have no
training, work for peanuts, and are paid cash without contributing to
Social Security or Workers Compensation. They have taken good jobs
away from Americans, and reduced the quality of workmanship. Today
trained, SS and WC paying, union workers in the building trades
account for about 20% of those on the job.

So, legal US citizens are inviting aliens to work here. The aliens are
accepting the invitation. Legal US citizens are choosing the resulting
buildings, probably because they are cheaper. Those legal US citizens
could just as easily pay more and buy Union-built houses if they want
to. They don't want to.

The point is, if the illegal alien workers were paying into Social
Security and Workers Comp., they would price themselves out of the
labor market, and permit wages to rise to the point where US citizens
would consider working those jobs.

That much is probably true. It points to the problem being elsewhere.

Illegal
aliens are crooks, and should be dealt with as any criminals.

That's not what you are proposing. You are proposing dealing with
=children= of illegal aliens, who are by rights US citizens by birth.

We must remove the incentive to illegal immigration by rescinding
the law that grants US citizenship to those born in the US as a result
of their mothers _illegal_ immigration into the US.

I don't think that's a good idea.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 19:34:55 +0200, Martin Hotze
wrote in
::

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:37:13 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

Now the building trades are dominated by illegal aliens who have no
training, work for peanuts, and are paid cash without contributing to
Social Security or Workers Compensation.

.. who gives them these jobs? Lawa abiding American companies?

If your competition is able to underbid you as a result of not paying
mandatory compensation (Social Security, Workers Comp., ...), if you
want to stay in business, you do the same. Failure to enforce one law
ultimately leads to failure of the entire legal system.

They have taken good jobs
^^^^
again, American companies have taken them. [1]

Only because there are lawless workers willing to accept the jobs. If
the lawless were kept out, that worker pool would not be available,
and all workers would compete for jobs on an even playing field.

away from Americans, and reduced the quality of workmanship. Today
trained, SS and WC paying, union workers in the building trades
account for about 20% of those on the job.

#m

[1] no US bashing here; this is true for almost every country.

Congressman [Duke Cunningham], aides [Delay's guy just plead
guilty, for the history buffs out there, looked up Paul
Powell, Illinois Sec of State. Just to refresh the story,
as Sec of State he had all of the forms for the Sec. of
State [all registrations of cars, trucks, boats, etc.] "Make
your check payable to Paul Powell." He died suddenly and
the police found $600,000 in cash in his hotel room in shoes
boxes and another million dollars in checks he had not yet
cashed. Several of his business partners went to Brazil.
The former governor of Illinois, Otto Kerner was sent to
prison for race track fraud.
Oh, Bill Clinton plead guilty to lying to the court and gave
up his law license in a DC court.


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. com...
| Jim Macklin
blurted:
| m...
| I don't want
| bribery, graft and oligarchy which are the rule south
of the
| USA.
|
|
| "Jose" wrote in message
| That's not the rule here? Check out the DC area.
|
| Recently, Jim Macklin
posted:
|
| Maybe it is, but we do occasionally have a trial, even
in
| DC.
|
| Can you say "detainees"? I knew you could!
|
| Neil
|
|
|

Hey Larry, I thought you were VERY VERY opposed to OT posting.

The Monk

"Jose" wrote in message
...
If the US immigration law hadn't been broken by the parents, their
children would have been born outside the US, and been ineligible for
immediate US citizenship. To reward criminal conduct is unjust

To punish innocents is unjust. The parents aren't being rewarded, the
children would be punished.

Jose


But I sort of doubt you'd say we should keep the child here and kick the
parents out.


But it would take a constitutional amendment to make the children born here
not citizens I doubt we could get it or any other amendment passed.