Tuesday, May 27, 2008

ILLEGAL MMIGRATION: How ANTIs Totally Misunderstand and Misrepresent the PRO Perspective

ANTI pundits and Bloggers constantly mis-interpret the Immigration debate. The National Review published this article titled “Immigration 2008.” The author, Victor Davis Hanson (the famed author of “Mexifornia”), shares his opinion on the current status of Immigration. While he does recognize the importance of this issue, particularly in relation to the Presidential Campaign, I found it incredible that he totally missed the mark when he attempted to interpret the PRO perspective. (or did he purposely misinterpret it?)
Hanson lists the following as the PRO perspective:
1. Open Borders
2. Carrying the Mexican Flag
3. Sending the poor to the US; Mexico remittances
Hanson´s list is totally off the mark. Most PROs, including most PRO Humanitarian organizations, call for:
1. Secure Borders, more trained BP agents
2. Employer Sanctions, especially those that exploit workers. (e.g. Agriprocessors)
3. Fix the Immigration process; Clean up the backlog; End the quid pro quo of the process so people apply and come here the right way.
4. Pathway to citizenship for those here
5. End to Detention Centers, Racial Profiling and End the Scape-Goating (ala Dobbs and Limbaugh) of all Latinos over these Immigration Issues.
The Mexican flag has little to nothing to do with this entire discussion, except for the fact the media and some ANTI groups utilize this ploy as a rallying call to stir up anger. Another rallying call Hanson mentions is the promotion of a Black vs Brown race war and Asians vs Brown educational imbalances. All ludicrous rhetoric to incite anger. Additionally, most PROs care nothing about Remittances to Mexico.

Hanson lists the following as the ANTI perspective:
1. Secure Borders
2. Mass Deportation
What I found interesting is, Hanson himself said Mass Deportation is a “losing issue.” Hanson continues, “(Mass Deportation) the practicality and morality of which are rarely considered by those rightly calling for an end to illegal immigration. Busing every illegal alien back to Mexico right now might resemble the past messy partition of India and Pakistan, and reopen the issue in a way that Democrats can legitimately exploit.”

Another interesting observation: Nowhere on the ANTI agenda do we see ANYTHING in regards to Employer Sanctions. Nor does he talk about the joy the ANTIs revel in when they discuss Sweeps (e.g. Arpaio Sweeps) or Detention Centers (most crony owned private prisons).

Hanson´s recommendations:
Close the border now through fencing, more agents, employer sanctions, enforcement of the law, and verifiable identification. Restore faith in the melting pot by insisting that new legal arrivals learn English and the customs and protocols of the United States.Explain to the Mexican and Central American governments that using the United States to avoid addressing internal problems — while making easy dollars off the backs of their own expatriate laborers — is over.
What is amazing is, most of Hanson´s recommendations fall in line with the PRO recommendations. It is the ANTIs that so adamantly promote deportation of the 12M here and refuse to consider any path to citizenship for those here.

31 comments:

dianne said...

The number 1 reason people don't want to give a path to citizenship to the illegal immigrants already here is cost. As everybody knows, the vast majority are not educated and work for low wages (driving down pay scales for citizens), but worse, once they get their green card and path to citizenship, they will end up on public assistance of one kind or another and they won't be paying any income taxes either because of their low wages. It will be a net tremendous hit on government spending and will increase as they bring their relatives here.

We can't afford it Dee, especially in these economic times. Citizens are already struggling. We are busting our butts to pay our taxes and I for one do not believe I have a responsibility to pay for social services for people who cannot pull their own weight. Yes, I know they work hard, but so do we..and we have...all our lives..only to see everything we have worked for be handed out to somebody who didn't even have the courtesy to knock on our front door.

patriot said...

Three lies about Hanson's article by you, dee. 1. He said nothing about the remittances going back to Mexico. 2. He said nothing about promoting a race war. 3. He said no such thing that the pro side of the issue is about flying the Mexican flag. Now that we have your lies out of the way, dee. Here is where you pro's CIR plan lacks credibilty.

1. Secure Borders, more trained BP agents.

(Of course, as long as it doesn't include the much needed fence and the borders aren't secured before any legalization occurs)

2. Employer Sanctions, especially those that exploit workers. (e.g. Agriprocessors)

(Except your side doesn't want the Save Act to pass which will include mandating the e-verify system which will in turn sanction the employers)

3. Fix the Immigration process; Clean up the backlog; End the quid pro quo of the process so people apply and come here the right way.

(Cleaning up the backlog is an entirely different issue than doing someting about those sneaking thru our border everyday and taking up residence illegally)

4. Pathway to citizenship for those here.

(Why? What did they do to deserve that? With most of them their loyalty is to Mexico or some other homeland anyway. You don't reward anyone for breaking our laws anyway)

5. End to Detention Centers, Racial Profiling and End the Scape-Goating (ala Dobbs and Limbaugh) of all Latinos over these Immigration Issues.

(These tools are very necessary to eliminate illegal immigration. We anti's have a mind of our own we don't need Dobbs or anyone else to tell us that this situation is bad. No one is demonizing legal, loyal Hispanic citizen...that is another one of your lies)

Dee said...

Pat,
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!

Here is what HANSON said about each:
1. remittances going back to Mexico.
HANSON: "They know instead that Mexico cares mostly about sending north those it won’t or can’t feed and house — so it can skim off from them billions in remittances once they arrive in the United States."

2. Race War
HANSON:
"Nowadays, worry about illegal immigration is just as likely to mean that African Americans are terrified of racist alien gangs in Los Angeles. Asian Americans are frustrated that their relatives with college degrees wait years to emigrate legally, while thousands without high-school diplomas to the south simply break the law to enter the United States."


3. Mexican Flag.
HANSON: "noisy May Day parades with Mexican flags and heated rhetoric from the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) only turn more people off."


Apparently you are not reading-interpretting too well these days Pat. Try the dollar store. they have nice, inexpensive glasses.

Dee said...

Pat,
Now you are bringing up the tired ole SAVE Act. The reasons, as I have explained many times before, that the SAVE Act is irrational is due to the clauses in the act that call for:
1. Increased Contractors patrolling the borders and violating our civil and human rights (ala Blackwater´s new border security bases near the border)
2. Increased monitoring via unmanned aircraft (again, Blackwaters trialing unmanned aircraft in Houston and other Border towns)
3. Eliminating our Civil Liberties via the various ID Acts

How many times do I have to repeat WHY we PROs oppose the SAVE Act?

patriot said...

About number 1. Hanson did not say that sending remittances back to Mexico is part of the PRO prosective as you stated.

About number 2, You claimed that Hanson was advocating a race war. Where did he say that?

About number 3. Where did Hanson say that waving the Mexican flag is part of the PRO prospective as you stated?

What you did was put your own spin on what he said. You do this all the time. You misinterpret and lie about what the anti's say all the time. This is just the usual for you.

patriot said...

No dee, the real reason you pro's ojbect to the Save Act is that it will mean firing all illegal aliens on an employers payroll and making sure they never hire any again. That is really what bothers you pro's. The illegals will leave voluntarily without jobs and you know and you don't want that. You pro's are so transparant.

Dee said...

Sorry Pat, In the last six items, it is Dee:6 Pat:0

Try studying, analyzing and digesting what he wrote. Perhaps you will understand.

Seek first to understand then to be understood.

Liquidmicro said...

You have it all wrong Dee. Its not ANTI vs. PRO, its Democrat vs Republican.

You fail to distinguish Republican does not = ANTI, nor does PRO = Democrat.

He didn't even try to interpret the PRO or the ANTI perspectives, but the Democrat and the Republican perspectives.

You're to quick to think that ANTI's are Republicans and Pros are Democrats. As stated before, I am a registered Democrat and an ANTI as you put it.

Dee said...

Liquid,
Neither the PRO nor the Democratic side is represented at all. It is ALL Republican and ANTI wishful thinking!!

patriot said...

Dee, your exact statement was, "Hanson lists the following as the PRO perspective." I saw no such list in the article you provided. Where is it?

1. Open borders....He said:

"Some time ago, supporters of open borders lost the debate.

(He didn't use the word PROS or that this is a PRO PERSPECTIVE but of course we do know this is true about many of the PROS)

2. Carrying the Mexican Flag...He said:

"And noisy May Day parades with Mexican flags and heated rhetoric from the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) only turn more people off."

(Where did he say that it is a PRO PERSPECTIVE to carry a Mexican Flag?)

3. Sending the poor to the U.S aka Mexico remittances, etc.

He said:

"They know instead that Mexico cares mostly about sending north those it won’t or can’t feed and house — so it can skim off from them billions in remittances once they arrive in the United States."

(He is merely stating that the Mexican government is condoning and enjoying the remittances. He didn't say that it was a PRO PERSPECTIVE)


And finally where in his following statement is he advocating a race war?


"Nowadays, worry about illegal immigration is just as likely to mean that African Americans are terrified of racist alien gangs in Los Angeles. Asian Americans are frustrated that their relatives with college degrees wait years to emigrate legally, while thousands without high-school diplomas to the south simply break the law to enter the United States."

DEE SPINNER OF TRUTH AND ALWAYS ADDING HER OWN WORDS AS IF THY WERE ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE ARTICLES SHE PROVIDES. VERY DECEPTIVE. WE DO READ THE ARTICLES YOU PROVIDE DEE SO NO MORE LIES OR SPIN, OK?

Liquidmicro said...

Clean your eyeballs!!

Comprehension is the key!!

He is talking about candidates of both sides, and relating that to what American Citizens are wanting.

Then he states what an astute candidate would advocate?

You your self stated you want secured borders.

Do you disagree with these policies he makes??:

"Close the border now through fencing, more agents, employer sanctions, enforcement of the law, and verifiable identification. Restore faith in the melting pot by insisting that new legal arrivals learn English and the customs and protocols of the United States.

Finally, deport aliens who have broken the law, are not working or have just arrived. Some illegal aliens will not like the new atmosphere of tough enforcement and will voluntarily go back home. Others may have criminal records or no history of employment and should leave as well.

But many millions of law-abiding, employed illegal aliens of long residence will wish to stay. We should allow these to remain in the United States while they apply for citizenship — if they are willing to learn promptly our language and customs."


Republican candidates must risk angering their base by ruling out mass deportation. Democrats should support closing the border tightly and quickly — and not cave in to open-borders pressure groups.

Making these tough choices now is what most voters want. The candidates of both parties in the next few months will either adjust accordingly or lose elections.


What is represented is what the "people" want, and what the politicians should do, either side.

ultima said...

The error in Hansen's and the Pro's approach is that they believe that border can be secured without internal enforcement. On Frontline tonight on PBS, an New York Times reporter who had been looking into human smuggling for years, discovered the following: rampant corruption at the border; fewer than half of illegals are apprehended the first time they try to cross, and 97% get across eventually. Those illegals who are apprehended and their smugglers are merely returned back to Mexico where another smuggler is waiting to make another usually successful attempt. The smuggler who was being interviewed anonymously said, "You will never stop them at the border."

What does that tell you?

1. The borders will never be secure without some severe penalties for both the illegals and their smugglers. Sending them back to Mexico is not a penalty of any kind.

2. The borders will never be secure unless we have a vigorous internal enforcement program using E-verification with penalties for both the employers and illegals.

3. The borders will never be secure unless we get serious about apprehension, detention and expeditious repatriation after serving an appropriate sentence working on the border infrastructure at a prison or minimum wage.

4. The borders will never be secure unless we reduce the cross border traffic to the number of vehicles and pedestrians that can be checked 100% with a system of biometric IDs that can be checked automatically against a national data base before anyone is admitted.

5. The borders will never be secure and that's exactly what the Pros want, as evidenced by their willingness to deny us the essential tools necessary to achieve comprehensive border security even though it cannot be done any other way.

Hansen true to his book realizes that at least in Mexifornia mass deportations are not possible anymore. The Mexicans are taking over this state and others. Besides few use the term mass deportations is used only by the Pros, and the lunatic fringe on both sides. The 5 points above do not require mass deportations. They require a little honesty on the part of the Pros and a systematic process to begin an orderly and human repatriation of as many as we can apprehend. Who would know better than a human smuggler whether illegals can be stopped at the border?

Also the Frontline program indicated that many if not most of those who come through the ports manned by corrupt border agents are criminals who cannot afford to be caught for obvious reasons but who have the money to pay the coyoteros.

I seriously doubt that many Antis misrepresent or misunderstand the Pro perspective. We understand perfectly and much to the Pros chagrin we see right through their charade of "secure borders" plus CIR and amnesty. Surely they can't be serious when they say we misunderstand and misrepresent their perspective.

They know just as we know that what they suggest as a solution won't work, as the smuggler clearly pointed out. Secure borders is a pipe dream even with a complete fence and more honest border patrol agents. It simply can't be done as the East Germans found out even though they employed land mines and machine gun towers as well a huge wall. The only way that would have worked is if the West had been willing to apprehend and repatriate escapees from the East. That, of course, was not in the cards. The West welcomed them as escapee from tyranny.

Similarly apprehension and repatriation are the only things that will work on our borders along with the other principles above.

ultima said...

Perhaps we should take note of the $15 billion shortfall in the California school budget recently announced. They, the Hispanic lawmakers and sundry Democrats brought on themselves. This will be happening in all the school districts across the nation where illegal aliens or their children have place a heavy burden on the schools. This first thing to go in the California schools is bilingual education in all of its manifestations. Instead communities should offer volunteer taught English courses for all comers, including children after school or during the summers.

patriot said...

I was watching Lou Dobbs yesterday and one of his guests was govenor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Dobbs asked him why he opposed the fence and he gave the usual Pro excuse that a 12 foot wall would only require a 13 foot ladder. Yet on a 17 mile sector on the San Diego border where the double layered fence has been constructed, it has cut back illegal entry by 90%. It is a huge deterrent. It is just too much trouble to carry a 13 foot ladder and slows them down enough where the Border Patrol can get to that sector before they actually cross. The fence plan of course includes additional Border Patrol and high tech surveillance equipment. In short, a physical barrier is an absolute necessity.

Another question that Dobbs asked Richardson is why we shouldn't secure the border FIRST before deciding what to do with the illegals already here. He gave the usual Pro response of we either need to do both simultaneoulsy or better yet legalize those already here FIRST. Why I ask? Dobbs didn't really try to pinpoint him on that as much as I would have liked. So I will pose the question in here to the Pros. Why shouldn't we stop the bleeding first by securing our border before considering what to do with those already here?

Dee said...

Ulty,
No charade. We do want secure borders. We also want the backlogged cleared up and a pathway to citizenship for those here.
ANTIs are uncompromising. Their only position is Mass Deportation of all 12M here and a thousand mile Fence. Period. (throw in a few raids and crony owned private prisons just for your private laughs).
Meanwhile, NONE of you are seriously calling for any type of sanctions or punishment for the employers-owners. You, of course, realize there would be no illegal immigrants if they had no jobs. However, you could care less that the unscrupulous, exploiting owners like Agriprocessors are walking around scot free as their solicited Guatemalan workers were cattled into Detention Center and Prisons.
Hanson does NOT communicate the true PRO perspective. Instead he plays up the ANTI positives, downplays their negatives, and attempts to come in as the compromiser with the solutions.

While both sides stand firm and uncompromising, the real winners are the Administration and Business. As long as Immigration policies remain status quo, Business is free to continue to bring in, employ and continue to exploit workers, raking in the profits. The Administration continues to accept PAC money from them and to grant their cronies favors via crony owned private prisons, crony contractors supplementing security and quid pro quo with neighboring countries´ Immigration authorities.

Ulty Said:
Antis .. understand perfectly and much to the Pros chagrin we see right through their charade of "secure borders" plus CIR and amnesty..

Dee said...

Pat,
ICE has told us the numbers of new incoming illegal immigrants have dropped significantly. The border security is working. The fence will not do much more than take time and cost money. So what would it accomplish other then to blight the landscape and take away land form land owners or put them in MX. (as is the case in El Paso and other border towns)

Instead, you and yours allow employers, the real culprits, to go scot free! The owner of Agriprocessors goes unpunished. Insolia from New Bedford, still NOT ONE DAY IN JAIL! Pilgrims Pride and Swift, Unpunished. The only names you call out as employers are some low level hispanics who were scapegoated by the Big Wigs!!

Shame on you Pat! If you and the ANTIs want to solve this issue, stop it where it starts! Put ALL the EMPLOYERS IN PRISON! CRONY OWNED PRISONS! I will support you on this!

patriot said...

dee, no you and the rest of the pros don't really want secure borders or you would 1. Want the borders secured FIRST. 2. Wouldn't be opposed to a physicla barrier where needed (700 miles, not 1,000 miles) which is already approved.

We anti's do want any backlogged cleared up but we do not feel that those here illegally have a right to a path to citizenship for breaking our laws. You are correct, we will NOT compromise on that and rightly so!

Another one of the lies that you keep repeating is that we want mass deportatations. The Save Act will result in self-deportations. Detention centers do not give us a laugh, dee. They are just a necessary evil just like prisons are for citizens who commit crimes. Raids are also another necessary tool to curb illegal immigration.

Another one your lies that you keep repeating is that we do not want the employers sanctioned. If that were so, then why do we want the Save Act passed? Since it hasn't passed yet the majority of Americans do want the employers fined and imprisoned when convicted of hiring illegals. Where have you ever read or heard that we don't? You haven't, dee!!! Agriprocessor is under investigation right now. Have you ever heard of anyone being convicted of a crime in a week and sentenced? You are being particularly unreasonable and obstinant about this. You know as well as I do that the wheels of justice take time when it comes to prosecuting an American citizen for a crime.

Again, Hanson never relayed in his article any specific Pro perspective. He did mention open border types which do comprise some or many of the Pro types and that is all. You spun everything else he said about the Pro side of this issue.

As long as congress or our president doesn't mandate that we secure our borders FIRST, the only alternative we have is the raids, detentions, deportations and passing the Save Act. That isn't status quo.

ultima said...

"If you and the ANTIs want to solve this issue, stop it where it starts! Put ALL the EMPLOYERS IN PRISON! CRONY OWNED PRISONS! I will support you on this!"

The problem with your support is it is unilateral, directed only at the employers. The Pros want to put a virtual fence around the illegals to protect them from any blame or penalties. La Raza basically wants open borders. Dee wants a simplified immigration procedure to reduce the backlog. That also is tantamount to open borders. We know you, Dee. Your foreign visitors from Europe should realize that they are nearing the point of no return as regards Western civilization, even in Spain where the Moors may be back in charge because of Catholic Spain's low fertility rate. That's another joke on them.We, so called antis, better described as pro-legals, want to solve this problem but there are no easy solutions if the Pros oppose every measure aimed at achieving that goal. What's wrong with punishing both parties and making sure that repeat offenders are incarcerated at hard labor working on border infrastructure. Border security is a joke as anyone can plainly see by the horrendous vehicular and pedestrian traffic streaming across the border every day most of which not checked by anyone. It is a terrorist's dream. Mark my words.

The authorities say that 97% of those who attempt to cross the border eventually achieve success, usually on the first pass if not on the second. Border security is a joke as we will find out before too much longer.

Get serious Dee. You know border security is a joke. An even bigger joke is your protestations that you and your ilk support border security while at the same time fight tooth and nail to deny us the tools necessary to even begin to address this problem, the SAVE bill for example. Your opposition to that that bill is right there on your blog and that opposition is ample proof that you don't really believe in effective measures to curb illegal entry into our country. Whenever you post that you support secure borders add the word, NOT! at the end so your statement will have some semblance of truth.

ultima said...

"While both sides stand firm and uncompromising, the real winners are the Administration and Business. As long as Immigration policies remain status quo, Business is free to continue to bring in, employ and continue to exploit workers, raking in the profits."

You got that much right, Dee. So why don't you get on board and support the SAVE bill to stop this exploitation and move E-verification to the front burner.

Dee said...

Ulty,
If Border Security is such a joke, why is it that ICE has reported massive reductions of new IIs crossing the borders? Because of the improvements and increased number of trained BPs, we are seeing the lowest rate of new IIs in years.

Dee said...

Ulty,
What I find unbelievable is the fact that you ANTIs do not advocate strong measures to sanction and imprison exploitive employers. Agriprocessors is a prime example of the most heinous of heinous employers. He was abusive. He provided workers papers. He operated a scam Visa operation. I am going to be writing a new blog on this tomorrow. Yet none of you are pushing to punish these employers. They should be put away and the key shuld be tossed away!

Dee said...

Ulty,
You are not reading between the lines in the SAVE Act. If this bill is passed, this will be a Crony Business Bonanza! The cronies are already raking in the Millions via the Detention Centers-Private Prisons. Imagine what will happen when they bring in private contractors like Blackwater to patrol the borders, conduct the sweeps everywhere, build more private prisons and flood our skyways with unmanned aircraft! Billions lost and Big Brother everywhere! Even your own side does not want the Big Brother e-Verify system brought in! You must be living in a dream world if you think any good can come of the so called Save Act! (Gestapo Act!)

Liquidmicro said...

why is it that ICE has reported massive reductions of new IIs crossing the borders? Because of the improvements and increased number of trained BPs, we are seeing the lowest rate of new IIs in years.

I suspect that that's not the only cause. Some counties along the border are having a zero tolerance initiative that is helping those specific areas. Lack of jobs and family telling others "not to come!" is having an effect, too. There are more than just BP officers causing this so called slow down in border crossings. The fence in SD, CA reduced border crossings illegally by up to 90%. The cost of a coyote has also risen, just one more thing to take into consideration.

Liquidmicro said...

What I find unbelievable is the fact that you ANTIs do not advocate strong measures to sanction and imprison exploitive employers.


ANTI's want the employers punished/imprisoned as well. Again I ask you, who is the employer? The CEO? The VP? The Human Resources Department? Who is it that actually hired these people?

Now, Corporate punishment is protected by what are called the RICO Laws. Those are what need to be changed. If you were to advocate that, I bet both ANTI's and PRO's would follow. Make the CEO and VP responsible for there companies.

Liquidmicro said...

Mohawk Industries

On April 26, 2006 the Supreme Court heard Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, which concerned what sort of corporations fell under the scope of RICO. Mohawk Industries had allegedly hired illegal aliens, in violation of RICO. The court was asked to decide whether or not Mohawk Industries, along with recruiting agencies, constitutes an 'enterprise' that can be prosecuted under RICO, but in June of that year dismissed the case and remanded it to Court of Appeals.


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 05–465
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER v.
SHIRLEY WILLIAMS ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
[June 5, 2006]

PER CURIAM. The writ of certiorari limited to Question 1 presented by the petition, granted at 546 U. S. ___ (2005), is dismissed as improvidently granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Anza
v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., ante, p. ___. It is so ordered.

Liquidmicro said...

Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, Shirley, et al.


In one prominent case, in which poultry distributor Tyson Foods was sued for recruiting undocumented immigrants and suppressing wages of existing workers, the case was allowed to proceed before eventually being settled out of court.

But in denying Mohawk's motion to dismiss, the 11th Circuit judges acknowledged that the suit closely resembled a 2004 decision made by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Baker v. IBP, Inc. In that case, Baker was the sole defendant in the suit, and the 7th Circuit ruled that the recruitment agencies alleged to be in on the conspiracy would have also had to have been named as defendants in the suit for the case to proceed.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the Mohawk case for review, limited to the first question in Mohawk's petition.

As the case pended, Congress considered at least four different bills seeking to solve the nation's complex undocumented immigration problem. Experts estimate that more than 10 million illegal immigrants now live and work in the U.S., 53 percent of them from Mexico, though even those figures became hotly contested in the congressional debate.

On June 5, 2006, the Court dismissed the case, noting in a one-paragraph per curiam opinion that the case was remanded to the 11th Circuit to be reviewed in light of the Court's decision in Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Co. , issued the same day.

patriot said...

dee, just what have us anti's said in here that would imply that we don't want any employers who hire illegal aliens severely punished including Agriproccers if they are CONVICTED of hiring illegals and other associated crimes? Where, dee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In fact we have said quite the opposite in here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All you do is make up lies about us without ever providing any proof whatsoever! Every one of us anti's in here have said we want the employers punished. The Save Act will really reign them in and we are in favor of that also. YOU are the one who doesn't want them punished as YOU don't want the e-verity system implemented so that it will stop them once and for all.

By the way, illegal entry into our country is down mostly due to internal enforcement not because our border is more secured. The word is getting around about the raids and new laws deterring illegal immigration and that is why fewer are crossing illegally.

patriot said...

dee, you are exaggerating ridiculously about what the Save Act will mean. Gestapo my a@@! A CITIZEN will have nothing to fear. Why do you care about anyone else rather than a citizen or legal resident in this country?

You are misinformed if you think that most Americans (anti's) don't want the Save Act to pass. You provided ONE example in here of that and now you claim that ALL the anti's object to the Save Act? My God dee, you have one of the worst honesty problems I have ever seen in a human being.

Dee said...

Who should go to prison? CEO and all those responsible for their heinous acts of exploiting illegal immigrants, providing false papers, bringing them in and making them work for $5 an hour, with no overtime. Insolia in New Bedford. Rubashkin and son at Agriprocessors. CEO of Swift and Pilgrims Pride.

Why are they any different then Skilling at Enron, Ebbers at Worldcom or Nacchio at Qwest?

We need a clear message sent. The CEOs MUST go to PRISON!!

patriot said...

No sh@t, dee. Have we anti's said otherwise? Only in your anti-hating demented mind!

MikeFrizzi said...

I have to say that I have never heard the anti-immigration population labeled 'anti,' but I kinda of like it! While I would definitely consider myself a PRO, I do feel a bit of sympathy (pity?) for the ANTIs. I think a lot of their sentiment is based in ignorance. Do you think many of the ANTIs are aware of things like the immigrant investor visa that MANY immigrants are taking advantage of? These types of visas are creating jobs and injecting money into the economy, yet all they focus on are the negative aspects of immigration. We need to shine more lights on more positive aspects or they will never be brought up in these kinds of exchanges.

Page Hits