The Candidates on Illegal Immigration

[K.Snyder]

YZGI;945331 wrote: Posted by K.Snyder:

People to whom have more than they need and do not share are evil. Pure and simple.





Most people who have more than they need likely worked hard for it and earned it. If they give it away, what is the incentive for the needy to work and earn their own?



K, you have more than you need if you have more 1 pair of socks, pants, shoes, or shirts. To what extreme do you propose we go?


Sorry I should clarify that...

People to whom have more than they need to sustain a healthy lifestyle and do not share those materials from which they do not need at the same time others need more than they have to sustain a healthy and adequate lifestyle then those people to whom will not share are evil. Pure and simple. Obviously dictated by those people having the knowledge that others need what they do not...

What's left is coming to the conclusion as to what people need in order to sustain a healthy lifestyle...

"...you have more than you need if you have more 1 pair of socks, pants, shoes, or shirts." People need more than one pair of socks, pants, shoes, or shirt to sustain a healthy lifestyle...Upon only having one pair of socks, pants, shoes, or shirt would ultimately mean you would have to do a significant amount of laundry in order to remain healthy by virtue of clean clothes...People to whom wear one pair of socks, pants, shoes, or shirt are people with bad hygiene and their lives would definitely not coincide with a life of longevity and prosperity...

People to whom have 50 pairs of shoes, 200 pairs of socks, pants, or shirt are peoples to whom do not need that many clothes...

[YZGI]

K.Snyder;945358 wrote: Sorry I should clarify that...



People to whom have more than they need to sustain a healthy lifestyle and do not share those materials from which they do not need at the same time others need more than they have to sustain a healthy and adequate lifestyle then those people to whom will not share are evil. Pure and simple. Obviously dictated by those people having the knowledge that others need what they do not...



What's left is coming to the conclusion as to what people need in order to sustain a healthy lifestyle...



"...you have more than you need if you have more 1 pair of socks, pants, shoes, or shirts." People need more than one pair of socks, pants, shoes, or shirt to sustain a healthy lifestyle...Upon only having one pair of socks, pants, shoes, or shirt would ultimately mean you would have to do a significant amount of laundry in order to remain healthy by virtue of clean clothes...People to whom wear one pair of socks, pants, shoes, or shirt are people with bad hygiene and their lives would definitely not coincide with a life of longevity and prosperity...



People to whom have 50 pairs of shoes, 200 pairs of socks, pants, or shirt are peoples to whom do not need that many clothes...
Do you need your computer or the internet to sustain a healthy lifestyle?

[K.Snyder]

YZGI;945368 wrote: Do you need your computer or the internet to sustain a healthy lifestyle?


No.

Well not specifically...I do feel being happy in life does prolong the longevity as well as prosperity of ones life...

But if everyone would share everyone would be happy...Well, at least peoples with good morale virtues, but that's the case anyway right?...

[K.Snyder]

K.Snyder;945371 wrote: No.

Well not specifically...I do feel being happy in life does prolong the longevity as well as prosperity of ones life...

But if everyone would share everyone would be happy...Well, at least peoples with good morale virtues, but that's the case anyway right?...


I should clarify that...I do feel that one being happy does prolong the longevity and prosperity of their life...Whether or not a computer makes that person happy is entirely up to them...

People to whom make over $80,000 in America specifically, as well as similar occurrences, and do not share is what I'm after...

[K.Snyder]

Jester;945757 wrote: You can blame Ghandi if it makes you feel better, regardless of blame, or percentage of blame, the problem is real and there is an responsible party by action and a responsible party by neglect... both need to head the law regardless of the reason.

The illegal person needs to be deported and the border needs ot be secured. And no services are to be rendered to illegals.

The ramification of illegals not being educated is moot, since they wont be here to cause the problems if/when the government seals the border and deports them.

You seem to think that its impossible to remove all illegal aleins, or that it will take a hundred years to do so, thats just not true, it takes back bone and not sympathy to an illegal action.


I wouldn't necessarily say 100 years, but I do think that it would take a significant amount of more tax payers' dollars in deporting them than the money being spent now...

I personally find it to be more of an effective endeavor to close the borders promptly at the same time giving those to whom are here citizenship...

Although, I do think that the correct amount of blame being dispersed to the guilty party within our government is relevant to the discussion as it would prevent the same problem from being ignored by virtue of prognostication...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;945798 wrote: I wouldn't necessarily say 100 years, but I do think that it would take a significant amount of more tax payers' dollars in deporting them than the money being spent now...



I personally find it to be more of an effective endeavor to close the borders promptly at the same time giving those to whom are here citizenship...
Why give them citizenship? What's the logic of rewarding criminal behavior when so many thousands play by the rules?

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;945800 wrote: Why give them citizenship? What's the logic of rewarding criminal behavior when so many thousands play by the rules?


I think it would help the economy...

K.Snyder;942512 wrote:

Give all illegal immigrants citizenship...Citizenship which can be taxed...Not only would there be roughly 20 million more taxable citizens but by them being here still being willing to work for cheap would ultimately keep millions upon millions of jobs from going overseas...Not only would more jobs be readily available to those newly appointed citizens but there would be considerably more jobs for other lower income working peoples and families...

We've kept a significant amount of jobs from going overseas as well as boosted the economy not to mention made healthier lifestyles for an already poorer population we have now...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;945806 wrote: I think it would help the economy...
If the economy trumps the rule of law, why not do that for all criminals, then? It would be pretty easy to figure out skills and interests by reading their rap sheets.

[Accountable]

Jester;945821 wrote: It looks like this:



'Jose' gets pulled over by the cops for an illegal U-turn, he is found to not have sufficent evidence of citizenship, *snip*
Such as what?

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;945820 wrote: If the economy trumps the rule of law, why not do that for all criminals, then? It would be pretty easy to figure out skills and interests by reading their rap sheets.


You sound like you're ready to draw and quarter these people...

To hold illegal immigration derived from motives to better peoples' lives to whom are subject to some of the worst living conditions in the world with any criminal to whom's in jail for anything less desirable than ones refusal to pay taxes is asinine...

I can't begin to understand why no one can empathize with Mexican illegal immigrants of others...

[scholle-kid]

K.Snyder;945316 wrote: Yes, but only if those to whom are doing the stealing need what they're stealing from those to whoms' livelihood is not in jeopardy in order to survive with adequate health. In such instances the persons', to whom is doing what others consider to be stealing, act becomes justifiable.




I want to be sure I understand your stance on this subject K.Snyder. .Would you allow a poor American family the same 'liberties ' as you are saying the poor from Mexico deserve?

Lets say we ,you and I are neighbors living next to each other, I am in a dead end job barely making minimum wage junker car rented house and you are a professional suit and tie nice car and home,,

one day I decide that I'm 'sick and tired ' of my way of life and instead of doing something constructive to 'help ' myself do better in life I just walk over to your house and start helping myself to your food ,clothes ,your children toys and what the heck I just sit right down take over the remote to your big screen TV and make myself to home, the whole while you and your family are sitting there while my kids are taking the food right off your kids plates and taking over your wife's PC I'm looking around for the keys to your car and asking for your gas card to go rent a movie on your account ,,, get the picture I'm drawing ?

Would you be telling your family to just don the humane thing and sit quitely,, after all look at the way we live and how much more healthy and nice you have it .

If taken in context my hypothetically story is rights on track

We in America have a higher standard are living then the poorer citizens do in Mexico,,

and while you may say ," they aren't taking the food off of our plates " they sure are helping themselves to medical and food stamps and welfare money that could and should be better spent on our own American homeless and poor citizens.

[K.Snyder]

scholle-kid;945836 wrote: I want to be sure I understand your stance on this subject K.Snyder. .Would you allow a poor American family the same 'liberties ' as you are saying the poor from Mexico deserve? Absolutely...I have no bias toward creed when it comes to people...

scholle-kid;945836 wrote:

Lets say we ,you and I are neighbors living next to each other, I am in a dead end job barely making minimum wage junker car rented house and you are a professional suit and tie nice car and home,,

one day I decide that I'm 'sick and tired ' of my way of life and instead of doing something constructive to 'help ' myself do better in life I just walk over to your house and start helping myself to your food ,clothes ,your children toys and what the heck I just sit right down take over the remote to your big screen TV and make myself to home, the whole while you and your family are sitting there while my kids are taking the food right off your kids plates and taking over your wife's PC I'm looking around for the keys to your car and asking for your gas card to go rent a movie on your account ,,, get the picture I'm drawing ? Uh...If you're wanting to know what I'd do in such an instance I'd tell you to go to hell...At no point would I condone stealing..."and your family are sitting there while my kids are taking the food right off your kids plates" means in such an instance you'd be taking from the necessities that I feel supports my family in order for them to live a healthy lifestyle...But in any case if I were your neighbor I would be nothing short of completely courteous and friendly towards you...I would have offered you a plate if I felt you could use it and would have surely done the same upon your asking me for a bit of assistance...As for the rest would be stealing, because if I'd made more than the roughly $80,000 a year I'd continuously give to charity...

scholle-kid;945836 wrote:

Would you be telling your family to just don the humane thing and sit quitely,, after all look at the way we live and how much more healthy and nice you have it .

If taken in context my hypothetically story is rights on track

We in America have a higher standard are living then the poorer citizens do in Mexico,,

and while you may say ," they aren't taking the food off of our plates " they sure are helping themselves to medical and food stamps and welfare money that could and should be better spent on our own American homeless and poor citizens.
Yes a significant amount of americans have a higher standard of living than your typical Mexican family...What I'd like to see done is that equaled out...I can't begin to understand why anyone would look at a poor person and not give that person aid when they could afford it...

And for the record I'm against illegal immigration...What I would have liked to have seen done was a sophisticated means to keep illegal immigrants out of this country and not having to fight over who doesn't want to give up their 4 wheeler and 4 TVs...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;945834 wrote: You sound like you're ready to draw and quarter these people...



To hold illegal immigration derived from motives to better peoples' lives to whom are subject to some of the worst living conditions in the world with any criminal to whom's in jail for anything less desirable than ones refusal to pay taxes is asinine...



I can't begin to understand why no one can empathize with Mexican illegal immigrants of others...
I empathize, as I've said before. I don't sympathize, as you clearly do. I don't understand why criminals from Central and South America, whose living conditions are no worse than any third world nation, shouldn't be held to the same standard as any other human.



Do you believe them somehow incapable of following the rule of law? Tens of thousands of their neighbors seem to be able to. Why should this group be treated special?

[RedGlitter]

Holy crap.....Jester;945821 wrote:





The rest of his posessions is sold at auction, if anyone has claim of money owed they petition the government for his assets, first come first serve. Half his money gets kept for restitution to the US government, 25% goes to him and 25% goes to anyone who petitions for his assets in legal claim.

Even I can't go for this, Jester. I understand full well where you're coming from on it as in it's not really "Jose's" if he's here wrongfully but it's still theft in my eyes- theft committed by us. I don't agree here. Send him home with what he can carry and let him make his own arrangements to pick up the remainder of his crap on his own ticket.



They will be told if they enter the country again illegally they will be executed.

Are you dead serious here? A little humanity please? Do we start cutting off hands for stealing loaves of bread too? This is going too far.

Any illegal alien who commits a violent crime while in this country will be executed immeadiately and his body will be catapaulted over the border, shortly therafter.

No. Give him the same chance as anyone else to be proven as guilty. Whether he's here illegally or not, that doesn't excuse us from higher ethics. As one radical to another Jester, I'm saying this part's too much.

We can use private agencies to auction off the illegal aleins possessions for a % of the sale...

I don't cotton to this. I don't see we have a right. He may have worked for it illegally but if he paid for it with even tainted cash it's still his.



Let the Mexican government take care of thier side of the border...thats thier problem.



But you know they won't because they aren't and they don't give a tinker's dam.

[K.Snyder]

RedGlitter;945848 wrote: ....


I think he was speaking tongue in cheek RedGlitter...

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;945845 wrote: I empathize, as I've said before. I don't sympathize, as you clearly do. I don't understand why criminals from Central and South America, whose living conditions are no worse than any third world nation, shouldn't be held to the same standard as any other human.



Do you believe them somehow incapable of following the rule of law? Tens of thousands of their neighbors seem to be able to. Why should this group be treated special?


I'd like to see those neighboring countries' illegal immigration procedures and limitations as well as which third world countries you're talking about specifically...

What's happened is that the United States of America is one of the most prosperous lands in the world bordered by one of the most perverse...It's not shocking to see those people knowing full well what lies behind a pathetic border control a life they can only dream of even if it meant a cashier or a McDonalds manager...

I don't condone criminal behavior but I also don't agree with all laws(Not to imply anything in this specific instance)...Yes, I do sympathize with the Mexican people.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;945854 wrote: I'd like to see those neighboring countries' illegal immigration procedures and limitations as well as which third world countries you're talking about specifically...



What's happened is that the United States of America is one of the most prosperous lands in the world bordered by one of the most perverse...It's not shocking to see those people knowing full well what lies behind a pathetic border control a life they can only dream of even if it meant a cashier or a McDonalds manager...



I don't condone criminal behavior but I also don't agree with all laws(Not to imply anything in this specific instance)...Yes, I do sympathize with the Mexican people.
Yes you do condone it! You not only condone it, you want to reward it with not only exactly what they came to steal, but want to add to it equal standing to all who followed the law and onerous procedures to EARN citizenship. That insults the law-abiding naturalized citizens and calls them no better than criminals. Yes, you certainly condone what they are doing.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;945844 wrote: I can't begin to understand why anyone would look at a poor person and not give that person aid when they could afford it...
Don't assume that we're not giving aid when it's so easy to check it out on the web.



LINK

Through the security-related ESF program, the United States provides economicaid to countries of strategic interest to U.S. foreign policy. Funding decisions on the ESF program are made by the State Department; programs are managed by USAID and the State Department. Strategic countries of interest to the United States are generally located in the Middle East or South Asia, but 11 Latin American countries have received some ESF funding in recent years, with Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru among the largest recipients. In FY2004, ESF assistance to countries that are now subject to Nethercutt aid restrictions totaled at least $42.6 million, including some $11.4 million for Mexico and $10.5 million for Ecuador. ESF funds were spent on a variety of projects including democracy, rule of law, and economic growth programs.

[scholle-kid]

K.Snyder;945844 wrote: Uh...If you're wanting to know what I'd do in such an instance I'd tell you to go to hell...At no point would I condone stealing..."and your family are sitting there while my kids are taking the food right off your kids plates" means in such an instance you'd be taking from the necessities that I feel supports my family in order for them to live a healthy lifestyle...But in any case if I were your neighbor I would be nothing short of completely courteous and friendly towards you...I would have offered you a plate if I felt you could use it and would have surely done the same upon your asking me for a bit of assistance...As for the rest would be stealing, because if I'd made more than the roughly $80,000 a year I'd continuously give to charity...




These illegal Mexicans that are not paying taxes but are living off of the American government food stamps ,welfare money and using our hospitals and schools ,, sure they 'work' for wages paid under the table ,while still ,paying no taxes and send the money they 'earn' back across the border to their 'families' while they live on our food stamps,welfare money etc... Isn't this called stealing in the same vein as 'a poor neighbor deciding to just partake of their neighbors property and possions because it's easier than making changes to a better way of life in their own home ?

[Accountable]

Jester;945892 wrote: In CA, a valid CA ID Card that links to a record that says they are here legally. Or a fingerprint card, that they scan then scan the fingerprint of the immigrant that matches to a data base that says the same thing...
Won't those San Francisco folks give a CA license to anybody? I'm not sure how hard it would be for a criminal alien to get a TX license. That's why I lean toward a national ID card. A free passport would be good.

[RedGlitter]

and the folks that can change it need to be in the country to do so, we fought and built a country worth something why cant they?


This part we agree on.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;945880 wrote: Yes you do condone it! You not only condone it, you want to reward it with not only exactly what they came to steal, but want to add to it equal standing to all who followed the law and onerous procedures to EARN citizenship. That insults the law-abiding naturalized citizens and calls them no better than criminals. Yes, you certainly condone what they are doing.


Well I should clarify what I've said...I don't condone all criminal behavior...I don't see what the United States government considers to be criminal in this specific instance to be even remotely close to the criminals in office who've purposely abetted to the "crimes" being committed by illegal immigrants...I hold those people within office to whom had/have the ability to prevent it more responsible...

"That insults the law-abiding naturalized citizens and calls them no better than criminals." I don't see how you've come to this conclusion...I see it as them being no better than other people.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;945889 wrote: Don't assume that we're not giving aid when it's so easy to check it out on the web.



LINK

Through the security-related ESF program, the United States provides economicaid to countries of strategic interest to U.S. foreign policy. Funding decisions on the ESF program are made by the State Department; programs are managed by USAID and the State Department. Strategic countries of interest to the United States are generally located in the Middle East or South Asia, but 11 Latin American countries have received some ESF funding in recent years, with Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru among the largest recipients. In FY2004, ESF assistance to countries that are now subject to Nethercutt aid restrictions totaled at least $42.6 million, including some $11.4 million for Mexico and $10.5 million for Ecuador. ESF funds were spent on a variety of projects including democracy, rule of law, and economic growth programs.




All I see is an attempt at spreading democracy while only a fraction of those funds are going to economic aid...And Bushs' obvious discontention of ICC virtue...

The High Cost of the U.S. Policy

By attacking the International Criminal Court the administration risks weakening respect for the rule of law and human rights as well as international legal standards generally. If the United States government is unwilling to contribute to strengthening the rule of law through the ICC, it should certainly not be a counterweight to progress.

You should also consider the high cost the effort has had on your important bilateral relations worldwide, from Latin America to the Caribbean, to Africa and Asia. Some U.S. officials have touted "success" by citing the number of bilateral agreements signed. Reality, however, tells a different story; the United States has achieved far less than some of its officials would have the world believe. So far, after nearly one and a half years of extremely heavy pressure, only one third of ICC states parties have signed a bilateral immunity agreement, while another two-thirds have remained firm in not signing, many of them even after being sanctioned. In addition, of all the agreements signed with states parties and non-states parties less than 20 have actually entered into force and only nine ICC States Parties, out of 92, are legally bound by a non-surrender agreement with the U.S. government.

Moreover, boasting about the number of agreements signed ignores the enormous resentment the policy has engendered. Many states, including close U.S. allies, signed only after having been threatened and coerced. Officials from a number of governments have stated publicly that they believe the agreements violate their international treaty obligations, their domestic laws and in some cases even their constitutions. Several states have signed agreements only in the face of what their diplomats have labeled "unbearable" pressure, including threats to cut not only military aid, but humanitarian aid, and economic assistance as well.

When the United States threatens sanctions it will, of course, have some initial success even in compelling countries to violate their own laws and policies. But Washington is sending the message that it is an ally only so long as it is able to force strict compliance with its agenda. When national interests diverge, the United States does not respect other states' policies. Claiming as justification that the United States simply does not want to be bound by a treaty that it has not ratified is disingenuous, since the issue is not the ICC assuming jurisdiction over crimes committed in the United States - a matter over which the U.S. government retains complete control - but whether other governments can determine who prosecutes crimes committed on their territory without regard to the power of the perpetrator's government.

The course the administration has pursued comes with an extremely high price tag, including weakening the principle of the equal application of the law and respect for multilateral institutions. Moreover, it has been damaging to U.S. credibility worldwide. Now is the time to step back from an extremely costly approach and "cut your losses." We urge you to reconsider the campaign against the ICC and certainly to extend national interest waivers to all ICC states parties that have not signed a so-called Article 98 agreement. http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/us120903-ltr.htm

[K.Snyder]

scholle-kid;945893 wrote: These illegal Mexicans that are not paying taxes but are living off of the American government food stamps ,welfare money and using our hospitals and schools ,, sure they 'work' for wages paid under the table ,while still ,paying no taxes and send the money they 'earn' back across the border to their 'families' while they live on our food stamps,welfare money etc... Isn't this called stealing in the same vein as 'a poor neighbor deciding to just partake of their neighbors property and possions because it's easier than making changes to a better way of life in their own home ?


Yes it is stealing if they've gained entry into this country illegally...My position is giving justification to peoples to whom needs to steal in order to survive but only if what they're stealing does not jeopardize the livelihood of those to whom they're "stealing" from...It's a basis of what I feel is human empathy associated with logic giving credence to sympathy...

The upper class in Mexico could be considered the exact same as the lower middle class in America I do believe...The illegal immigrants here do work without paying taxes which I'm vehemently against,..but the majority of Americans can afford to provide illegal immigrants with health care from which is divinely needed and I go as far to say an education as well...

People just don't want to give up their 3rd TV and 4 wheeler to do it...I call it non-empathetic and unsympathetic...

The poverty rate and the economy in Mexico is improving greatly from yesteryears but the fact of the matter is is that what's done is done...Allowing people to whom need adequate health care is just inhumane and those to whom do not feel uneducated peoples are of no concern obviously underestimate ignorance...

What's needed is an adequate plan to rid the US of illegal complacency while being as cost efficient and competently carried out as possible...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;945946 wrote: All I see is an attempt at spreading democracy while only a fraction of those funds are going to economic aid...And Bushs' obvious discontention of ICC virtue...

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/us120903-ltr.htm
You implied we weren't giving aid. Now it's not enough or it's too many strings. If you think we're just going to Fedex a box full of cash to anybody who doesn't have as much as we have, simply because they don't have as much as we have, you're living in fantasyland.



Our conversation on this is really done so I'll just leave it here. The point of the thread is to establish where the candidates stand on the issue anyway.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;946259 wrote: You implied we weren't giving aid. Now it's not enough or it's too many strings. If you think we're just going to Fedex a box full of cash to anybody who doesn't have as much as we have, simply because they don't have as much as we have, you're living in fantasyland.



Our conversation on this is really done so I'll just leave it here. The point of the thread is to establish where the candidates stand on the issue anyway.


Absolutely...I agree...We both have our opinions...

I would like to reiterate that I never once thought that we were giving enough...So naturally "Now it's not enough" isn't exactly pragmatic upon my intricacy...

And I wouldn't call an idealistic optimism "fantasyland"...The fact of the matter is is that most Americans live extremely fruitfully and they have no desire to help those to whom do not...

[K.Snyder]

K.Snyder;946733 wrote:

I would like to reiterate that I never once thought that we were giving enough...So naturally "Now it's not enough" isn't exactly pragmatic upon my intricacy...




In fact,..I don't consider

In FY2004, ESF assistance to countries that are now subject to Nethercutt aid restrictions totaled at least $42.6 million, including some $11.4 million for Mexicohttp://ciponline.org/facts/060410crs.pdf

to be even remotely close to desirable given the fact that that $11.4 million is being spread out with only a fraction of that going to economic aid...

[Daniyal]

Accountable;938266 wrote: This is the first of hopefully several threads I want to start on various issues important to the presidency. I've chosen both representatives of the controlling party, and Bob Barr, candidate for Libertarian party. Of course I can add others if I think you're sincerely interested or you can add them yourself. I invite, even beg for, your input. We'll start with Illegal Immigration. I separated it from border security because that's an issue worthy of its own thread.



All three have something to say about deterring illegal immigration from within. Click on the name for source link.



Barack Obama

Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally: To remove incentives to enter the country illegally, we need to crack down on employers that hire undocumented immigrants. Barack Obama has championed a proposal with Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Max Baucus (D-MT) to create a new employment eligibility verification system so employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S.

Obama is predictably vague. Anybody know what he means by "crack down"?



Bob Barr

Equally important, we must end government benefits and services for illegal immigrants. Many local communities and states have begun to reduce payments to those who come here illegally, but a 1982 Supreme Court decision mandates that we provide education to the children of illegal immigrants. This detrimental ruling should be overturned through another Court challenge or a constitutional amendment.



Government and public hospitals also are forced to treat illegal immigrants for all manner of problems (over and above true emergency care). This costs states billions of dollars annually in medical costs. Private charities may support whomever they believe to be worthy of help, but taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize those who illegally enter America. Free health care and education benefits create a powerful economic incentive for illegal immigration.



The U.S. also should reconsider the policy of “birthright” citizenship. The members of Congress and state legislatures that approved the 14th Amendment (in the late 1860s) never imagined that their work would turn the children of tourists, as well as illegal migrants, into citizens. Although a constitutional amendment likely will be necessary to do this, America should join most of the countries of the world and require more the than location of birth to determine citizenship.

Barr's ideas arguably go too far, but not by a lot. He could never get the more extreme ideas through. More importantly, it gives a good indication of the kinds of legislation he would likely veto.



John McCain

Comprehensive Immigration Initiatives for a Secure Nation. Once the borders are secure, John McCain will:



Prosecute “Bad-Actor” Employers. John McCain will implement a secure, accurate, and reliable electronic employment verification system to ensure that individuals are screened for work eligibility in a real-time fashion. John McCain will use this new system in conjunction with other Department of Homeland Security resources to identify and aggressively prosecute employers that continue to hire illegal immigrants. The Electronic Employment Verification System will:


Establish a user-friendly system employing a limited set of secure documents that contain biometric data and are electronically verifiable to check a worker’s identity.

Provide responses to employer inquiries in a prompt and timely manner to provide both the employer and employee security in their hiring decisions.

Update and ensure the accuracy of current databases of government agencies that play a role in employment verification.

Protect the identities of each employee being screened and allow both employer and employee adequate time and opportunity to correct possible errors with any information in the system.

Institute targeted auditing by Department of Labor in order to weed out employers abusing the system.

Unless I'm wrong, McCain is talking about the RealID card, a national ID card. I find myself going back and forth on this one. a national ID card makes sense, but it has to be free and easily obtainable, yet extremely hard or expensive to counterfeit. I also worry about it being the "camel's nose under the tent" by linking it to too much information. The military ID card, for example, now has all a GI's information including pay records and medical files. I don't think such privacy should be invaded by a national ID card.



For me: SCORE ONE FOR BARR!




This post is almost funny . You people take other people land then you call them Illegal's D** ******

[Accountable]

Daniyal;947390 wrote: This post is almost funny . You people take other people land then you call them Illegal's D** ******
Yup. We can't erase every ill done to everyone. We have to deal with what we've got.

[Daniyal]

Accountable;947412 wrote: Yup. We can't erase every ill done to everyone. We have to deal with what we've got.




Thats your true nature coming out told you didn't I .

[Accountable]

Daniyal;947447 wrote: Thats your true nature coming out told you didn't I .
I guess it would be too much to ask if you had something to actually contribute to the conversation?

[Daniyal]

Accountable;947508 wrote: I guess it would be too much to ask if you had something to actually contribute to the conversation?




I Did Rather You Agree Or Not ... Illegal < What A Joke :wah:

Next your going to say something silly like they are takeing people job's ... People like you must read the same script because you all come with the same old bull ...

[scholle-kid]

Daniyal;947519 wrote: I Did Rather You Agree Or Not ... Illegal


The first thought that cme to me when I read your post was

"Wow,talk about 'bull' ." I have been following this thread pretty close and your reference to the illegals 'taking people's jobs' is the first reference to that subject, in this post :rolleyes:

[Daniyal]

scholle-kid;947527 wrote: The first thought that cme to me when I read your post was

"Wow,talk about 'bull' ." I have been following this thread pretty close and your reference to the illegals 'taking people's jobs' is the first reference to that subject, in this post :rolleyes:




If you have waited a little alonger it would have came up . You best believe that ,First How can they be Illegal Immigrat , When the people who took their land , Are Now On Their Land . Now That Backward's ... Maybe you miss that or you agree with the land '' Taker'' Right .

[Accountable]

Daniyal;947519 wrote: I Did Rather You Agree Or Not ... Illegal
Yep. There's a mailing list.



Ours is a land of laws. All are welcome who follow the law.

[Daniyal]

Accountable;947591 wrote: Yep. There's a mailing list.



Ours is a land of laws. All are welcome who follow the law.


There you go with your sillyness .

[Accountable]

Daniyal;947634 wrote: There you go with your sillyness .
Maybe, but as silly as you seem to think laws are, they are important in our country.

[Daniyal]

Accountable;947682 wrote: Maybe, but as silly as you seem to think laws are, they are important in our country.




Wrong The Country / Land That Was Taken By Force LOLOLOLOL Some One Should Claim Your House And Then Say This Is Our House . :wah:

[Accountable]

Daniyal;947694 wrote: Wrong The Country / Land That Was Taken By Force LOLOLOLOL Some One Should Claim Your House And Then Say This Is Our House . :wah:
Again, you can lament a history that we can't/won't rectify, or you can discuss the present situation. Your choice.

[Daniyal]

Accountable;947699 wrote: Again, you can lament a history that we can't/won't rectify, or you can discuss the present situation. Your choice.




You mean his-story not History Right .

[Accountable]

Daniyal;947701 wrote: You mean his-story not History Right .
Call it what you like, then join the conversation.



I take it you think we should not have border control? How about Customs or Immigration officials? Many people think we should do away with them altogether. Is that your take?

[Daniyal]

Accountable;947705 wrote: Call it what you like, then join the conversation.



I take it you think we should not have border control? How about Customs or Immigration officials? Many people think we should do away with them altogether. Is that your take?


It funny you flip the script at will:wah: Yall take people land then you say you need border control , TO KEEP THEM OUT OF THEIR OWN LAND . :wah::wah: And I Notice How You Leave These Things Out Of Your Post'ssss

[G#Gill]

Daniyal which land are you talking about ??