USA Politics

I really agree with both points under Chicago and the illegals.

Legalize and tax pot, prostitution, and gambling. Give illegals a path to becoming taxpaying citizens, and make the border easier to cross legally, and you'll see a huge happy change. If you make it harder to cross illegally AND easier to do so legally, legal immigration will increase.

There is no doubt the immigration policy in the US has been lacking for some time in terms of who they allow in. There should be an easy to understand way to become a citizen of the US with some sort of temporary status in between. However, there needs to be severe penalties who do not follow that and that needs to be a combination of border enforcement and a crackdown on those who hire illegals.

The e-verify system was a good idea, but it really does not work well. It needs to be as accurate as possible, mandatory for all employers to use, and give employers who use it properly a safe harbor from prosecution if it is determined someone was illegally hired. The example I would give is that if someone hires someone with and ID who says they are a 25 year old male and the picture looks like them and there are not blatent signs of ID tampering, the employer is in the clear. If the same ID is used with a 30 year old woman and the ID looks pasted together, the employer should be nailed. Obviously there are many shades of grey in there.

Also, these day labor centers should be using e-verify as well.
 
I totally agree with Bearfan about legalizing pot to hurt the gangs and what he says about illegals. And if we kick out all the illegals, food prices won't shoot up. Legal citizens will get those jobs instead who should have those jobs instead of illegals who are taking away those jobs.

The state of the union address translated to the truth:
From: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/12/Fact-Check-State-of-the-Union-2013
President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address included few new or unexpected proposals, but many factually incorrect or misleading assertions. Here are the lowlights.

“Corporate profits have rocketed to all-time highs – but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budged.” Wages and incomes may not always be the best measurement, because they leave out benefits, which have increased overall compensation over several decades. Regardless, Obama chose his timeframe carefully, because over the past four years, middle class income has actually declined.

“In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars’ worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year.” Obama is referring to the sequester. He omits the fact that he (or his White House) proposed the sequester, and he personally signed it, with the hope of using it to push Republicans into passing higher tax rates on high earners.

“Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion.” Both Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Read have used this claim, but it’s not true. As FactCheck.org noted recently, the figure includes over $1 trillion in spending cuts that “have yet to materialize.” It also includes $500 billion in projected reduced interest—not spending cuts or tax increases—and deficits remain high.

“Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs.” The cost of health care has continued to grow, albeit less quickly—but the recession is a big part of the story. People are spending less because they can afford less. Obamacare has already made health insurance premiums more expensive, and Obamacare does not change the fundamental incentive problems that drive costs in U.S. health care.

“Let me repeat—nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime.” This is a repeated promise (as well as a repeated metaphor: Obama also used the “single dime” phrase to in describing tax cuts in his stimulus). Obama broke that promise most spectacularly in Obamacare, which only “balances” due to accounting tricks and is almost certain to cost more than originally expected—net as well as gross.

“We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it.” As I demonstrated in my recap of Obama’s 2009 address, the supply of renewable energy sources in the U.S. rose only about 10% in Obama’s first three years in office—very far from doubling.

“Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods—all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.” Or we can call it “weather,” which is far closer to the truth than this scary story.

“That’s why my Administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.” In order to “keep” doing something, you have to have been doing it already. As Mitt Romney argued very ably in the presidential debates, the Obama administration has tried to slow oil and gas permitting on public lands, while taking credit for (or obstructing) much of the energy boom that has taken place on private lands.

“But taxpayers cannot continue to subsidize the soaring cost of higher education.” The fact that taxpayers continue subsidizing the cost of higher education is part of the reason that the cost of education keeps rising. Obama did not mention the crisis in student loan delinquency, which increased support from the government for tuition costs has not been enough to prevent. The fundamental problem is youth unemployment.

“[M]ore boots on the southern border than at any time in our history, and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.” Many of the “boots” Obama deployed to border states did not actually go to the border, less than half of which is actually secure. Illegal border crossings have decreased—but it is almost universally agreed that the cause is our poor economy, not enforcement—which Obama has effectively gutted.

“And I ask this Congress to declare that women should earn a living equal to their efforts, and finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year.” This is a rather amusing promise, since Obama’s support for the Lily Ledbetter Act in 2009, which was meant to have guaranteed “equal pay,” was a major boast in his re-election campaign. Did he fail to make pay equal when he said he had? No—he just needs the issue to boost support.

“Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour.” That means, of course, that fewer people will be working full-time, or even part-time. Hiking the minimum wage is at odds with increasing jobs, and hurts minorities and young people worst, damaging their future employment prospects significantly.

“We’ll give new tax credits to businesses that hire and invest.” A rather vague promise that sounds like a good idea. It’s not a factual mistake by itself—except that it likely contradicts his earlier promise on tax reform: “The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms, and more time expanding and hiring.” That means fewer special rules, deductions and tricks.

“Today, the organization [Al Qaeda] that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self.” It takes a special kind of chutzpah to say that, five months after a terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that claimed the lives of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. Obama acknowledges that the threat continues—it is “evolving,” he says, in a curious use of the word—but to declare victory, without mentioning Benghazi?

“The regime in North Korea must know that they will only achieve security and prosperity by meeting their international obligations.” Since when has the North Korean regime ever cared about prosperity? This marks the third State of the Union address in which Obama has mentioned North Korea (he did so in 2010 and 2011 as well)--and each time Obama has congratulated himself for his administration’s policy on the issue.

“As long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, we will do whatever we must to protect those who serve their country abroad, and we will maintain the best military in the world. We will invest in new capabilities, even as we reduce waste and wartime spending.” Even before the sequester, the Obama administration has slashed defense, reducing our military capabilities to the point where we can no longer plan to fight a two-front war.

“That’s why, tonight, I’m announcing a non-partisan commission to improve the voting experience in America.” Not the accuracy or fairness or transparency of the process, but the experience. The chances that Obama’s commission will recommend photo ID for voters, or that such a recommendation would be adopted, are zero. In fact, the Obama administration has stridently opposed states’ own efforts to improve voting in America.

“Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.” These terms suit Obama’s gun control agenda, but they are grossly misleading. So-called “weapons of war”--i.e. assault rifles, machine guns and the like—are already banned, and proposals on the table to reduce magazine size target relatively small clips, not “massive” ones.
 
I totally agree with Bearfan about legalizing pot to hurt the gangs and what he says about illegals. And if we kick out all the illegals, food prices won't shoot up. Legal citizens will get those jobs instead who should have those jobs instead of illegals who are taking away those jobs.

Think about that for a second. What is the job most illegals have? Harvest work. They go from farm to farm, following the seasons across the southern USA, harvesting crops for a fraction of the cost. Half, maybe less, of minimum wage. If those 11 million harvesters are replaced with legal workers who will demand minimum wage (at minimum), who do you think will eat the higher wages? It's not the farmers and the businesses. It's you. The consumer.

Any food you buy that was harvested in the USA most likely touched the hand of illegals, especially food products from the southern USA.

Imagine if your favourite shoe brand brought its production back to the USA from China. The factory wages here are five, ten times higher. What's going to happen? Shoe costs go up. Electronics, appliances, etc. They all benefit from cheap labour in China. That's why everyone has a fucking flat screen tv. If those jobs that used to be in the USA were still there, the prices would still be ridiculously high. The same principle applies here.

As for the Breitbart thing, I got about a paragraph and a half in before my eyes rolled back into my head. Hyperbole much.
 
Think about that for a second. What is the job most illegals have? Harvest work. They go from farm to farm, following the seasons across the southern USA, harvesting crops for a fraction of the cost. Half, maybe less, of minimum wage. If those 11 million harvesters are replaced with legal workers who will demand minimum wage (at minimum), who do you think will eat the higher wages? It's not the farmers and the businesses. It's you. The consumer.

Maybe not, from politifact


About 3 percent of illegal immigrants were working in farming and related sectors, according to Pew, which was well below the percentage working in service occupations (33 percent), construction and extractive jobs (17 percent), production, installation and repair (16 percent) and transportation and moving (8 percent). Asubsequent Pew study pegged the number working in farming and related sectors slightly higher, at 4 percent.

The whole article is here
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ok-post-says-less-2-percent-illegals-are-pic/

the bounce around a bit saying it might be a few percentage points higher depending on what survey/poll you look at, but certainly not most.

Edit: Reread that one survey from 2005 said 19% in farming, that is the highest percentage quoted.
 
I totally agree with Bearfan about legalizing pot to hurt the gangs and what he says about illegals. And if we kick out all the illegals, food prices won't shoot up. Legal citizens will get those jobs instead who should have those jobs instead of illegals who are taking away those jobs
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA. Really? I guess you haven't heard of ALABAMA which implemented stricter laws than Arizona's SB1070 and they got exactly what they wanted, all the illegals left the state. They also got tons upon tons of spoiled produce and received a government bail for the loss of crops as well as needing to "import" food. NOT ONE legal citizen wanted that job. When are people going to get that? Just because there is a job to do doesn't mean there will be someone who wants to do it. Just because my dog takes a crap in the yard doesn't mean I want to pick it up. That's why I hire a Guatemalan to do it for me...
 
If all those illegals hadn't come to this country in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem. I'm sure if they all left the country, plenty of legal citizens who desperately need jobs would work for the same wages just to get some income. Also, isn't it illegal to be paying them less than minimum wage?
 
Also, isn't it illegal to be paying them less than minimum wage?
Yes but they're not documented workers so it doesn't matter. That's part of the point. They'll do work that most legal citizens don't want for less than minimum wage.
 
That's the problem! Because they'll do work for less, they're stealing jobs that legal citizens should be getting for minimum wage.

Also, just came across this: http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stor...rder-report-remains-secret-130211?news=847030
Americans have no Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures if they happen to be within 100 miles of the border, according to the “Executive Summary” of a still-secret report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As the ACLU-created map above shows, nearly 2/3 of Americans (197 million people)—including the entire populations of Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Washington, DC, and Michigan—live in this “Constitution free” zone, as do the residents of the nation’s five most populous cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia.



The secret report is DHS’s response (two years late) to critics of its policy, in place since at least 2008, of allowing border control agents, without a warrant or even a suspicion of wrongdoing, to search any travelers’ electronic devices (laptops, cell phones, tablets, cameras, etc.) and seize data they find. According to a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) filed three years ago by the ACLU, DHS subjected more than 6,500 travelers—nearly half of them U.S. citizens—to searches under this policy between October 2008 and June 2010.



The Executive Summary of the secret report, which DHS is allowing the public to see, sets forth its conclusions without even summarizing the reasoning underlying them. Thus it asserts that “imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” but is silent on how DHS defines “civil rights/civil liberties benefits” or how it balances these against its institutional needs.



The ACLU, which has already filed an FOIA request demanding the full report, released a statement arguing that “allowing government agents to search through all of a traveler’s data without reasonable suspicion is completely incompatible with our fundamental rights: our Fourth Amendment right to privacy—and more specifically the right to be free from unreasonable searches—is implicated when the government can rummage through our computers and cell phones for no reason other than that we happen to have traveled abroad. Suspicionless searches also open the door to profiling based on perceived or actual race, ethnicity, or religion. And our First Amendment rights to free speech and free association are inhibited when agents at the border can target us for searches based on our exercise of those rights.”
DAMN! The direction things are headed in this country scares the living hell out of me!
 
No. The key words here are DON'T WANT. Legal citizens aren't going to take those jobs anyway.
 
But they aren't. That's why the illegals have them. Do you know of anybody who was directly denied a job in favor of an illegal immigrant? I don't.
 
Why are you so xenophobic? Like LC (I think) said, the US borders should be loosened. They're not doing anything to harm you, believe it or not. Yes, there are some that shouldn't be here, people who aren't working and are hurting the economy, but many of them are working and contributing to the country. So what's the problem? Do you not like people from other countries coming here? Because that would be completely against what the point of this country was in the first place.
 
people who aren't working and are hurting the economy

Big myth & cliché. They still consume feeding some super markets, filling stations etc etc. Economy is not the legal economy only. They are providing cheap labour so some small entrepreneurs can be possible, or bigger entrepreneurs richer. Economy is like the life, nobody can hurt it, simply because he's part of it.
 
Back
Top