From: "Gary Britt" 

True, but in this fantasy world we are discussing where the congress
suddenly has the will to seal the borders that problem could be solved.
Further, by making more serious criminal penalties for people who hire
illegal would encourage them to work through the new job placement
situations for immigrants.

And one very important thing I forgot to mention previously.  While we have
people talking about putting increased criminal penalties on employers that
USA citizens/residents, we should also put a mandatory 3 month or 6 month
sentence on people entering the country illegally.  If you keep it under 6
months than the constitutional rights to counsel and jury trials don't
apply (at least they don't apply to USA citizens so maybe the illegal
immigrants wouldn't be given more rights than USA citizens).

If we start scooping them up and putting them in jail for 3 to 6 months
with no income for their families during that period of time, they will
stop coming in such large numbers.

Gary

"Ellen K."  wrote in message
news:fblbm1tn740bhnfgk8341canjv60oc8hkv{at}4ax.com...
> A large percentage of them don't get the kind of jobs that employers
> post ads for.  They get jobs as a cleaning lady, busboy, gardener's
> helper etc.
>
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:24:58 -0500, "Gary Britt"

> wrote in message :
>
> >It could be set up that people seeking entry must have already secured a
> >job, and that would be part of the requirements for entry.  Methods for
> >these two groups (employers here and workers there) to connect and make
and
> >receive job offers could be established.  Then the government wouldn't be
> >deciding.  Still if there is no other possible solution, then I'd rather
> >have the government decide than to in effect have open borders.
> >
> >I do like your idea of no way to get government benefits and force the
> >unemployed immigrants to leave, if only it could be done.
> >
> >Gary
> >
> >"Ellen K."  wrote in message
> >news:1bsam1t8d79q35g3089f530u8m1baa38kn{at}4ax.com...
> >> The Hispanics who come in through Mexico looking for work, always find
> >> work.  The trouble with deciding what workers we need and then letting
> >> in matching people is that GOVERNMENT would be trying to manage the
> >> private economy.
> >>
> >> Again, my vision (which is an ideal I recognize as unacheivable) would
> >> be secure BORDERS (by means of intensive security vetting of would-be
> >> immigrants) but no quotas, and no possibility for immigrants or their
> >> minor children to get public benefits.  That would be a free-market
> >> solution, because only those wanting to work would come in, and if
> >> unable to find work, they would leave again because they couldn't get
> >> welfare etc.
> >>
> >> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:14:14 -0500, "Gary Britt"

> >> wrote in message :
> >>
> >> >Well when you said let in everyone from Canada I
mistakenly took that
to
> >me
> >> >European looking whites.  I don't agree with open immigration.  A
secure
> >> >border that everyone is allowed to pass for the asking is again no
border
> >at
> >> >all, in effect, and without borders you can't be a country.
> >> >
> >> >I think we should control immigration for what those
immigrants can do
> >for
> >> >the country once they are here.  We shouldn't set quotas
necessarily
on a
> >> >country by country basis, so that educated white Europeans from the
> >former
> >> >eastern bloc countries are discriminated against in favor of
non-educated
> >> >people from some other country.
> >> >
> >> >I don't mean to say that we shouldn't admit people who
will do labor
and
> >> >don't have college educations.  We need certain numbers
of those types
as
> >> >well.  I just think the influx should be managed to the extent
possible
> >to
> >> >match immigrants to meaningful employment for the benefit of the
country
> >as
> >> >a whole.  Right now immigration is a net drain on our government
> >resources,
> >> >and it doesn't need to be that way.
> >> >
> >> >Gary
> >> >
> >> >"Ellen K." 
wrote in message
> >> >news:plr8m153n9h46shv0vh4oosulvcnt3rrts{at}4ax.com...
> >> >> Actually I said "open immigration", not
"open borders".  Obviously
the
> >> >> BORDERS have to be secured.  What I meant by
"open immigration" was
> >> >> doing away with quotas etc, IOW letting in as many
as want to come
> >> >> PROVIDED there would be rigorous security vetting
and they couldn't
get
> >> >> any public benefits.  (Since the latter will never
happen, this
would
> >> >> really require a magic wand.)
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't say "just white people", and I
didn't say those would be
the
> >> >> *only* ones the "authoritarian" folks
would like to let in, if you
look
> >> >> again you will see that I was talking about which
countries would be
> >> >> given preferential quotas.  But FWIW, the person
with whom I have
most
> >> >> frequently argued about this thinks we should only
let in people
from
> >> >> groups documented to have a high average IQ.  He
probably would be
> >> >> perfectly happy to let in an unlimited number of Japanese.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:39:00 -0500, "Gary Britt"

> >> >> wrote in message :
> >> >>
> >> >> >I don't agree that libertarians favor open
borders.  At least not
open
> >> >> >borders in the sense that there is open flow of
uncontrolled and
> >illegal
> >> >> >immigration.  If you meant libertarians would be
in favor of
letting
> >> >people
> >> >> >in legally on a controlled basis to compete for
jobs, etc., then
that
> >may
> >> >be
> >> >> >true.  The most prominent libertarian I know is
Neal Boortz and he
> >> >> >definitely does NOT favor our current border
situation.  He wants
the
> >> >> >borders sealed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I also don't agree with the implications in your post that
> >> >non-libertarian
> >> >> >republicans want to just let white people in.  I
think that is an
> >unfair
> >> >> >characterization and stereotype.  They want
legal immigration as
> >> >necessary
> >> >> >to meet the needs of our country's economy.  They and the
libertarians
> >> >> >believe you can't have any kind of immigration
policy if you don't
> >have
> >> >> >borders.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >As Reagan aptly put it, a country that doesn't
control its borders
> >isn't
> >> >> >really a country.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Gary
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Ellen K."
 wrote in message
> >> >> >news:p1h8m1hvag45v36sgf6r5igbl7hn95kpc9{at}4ax.com...
> >> >> >> The border issue has a built-in
divisiveness in that generally
> >> >> >> libertarian types favor open immigration
while the other flavor
of
> >> >> >> Republicans (some call them
"authoritarian" but I bet they don't
> >like
> >> >> >> that label) would like to even reduce legal
immigration and also
go
> >> >back
> >> >> >> to giving preference to certain countries'
nationals (which
> >definitely
> >> >> >> would not include any from the Western
Hemisphere other than
> >Canada).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Personally I am very concerned about the
security issues of lax
> >border
> >> >> >> control (I'm sure plenty of Islamist
militants are coming in from
> >> >Mexico
> >> >> >> because it's so easy to get in that way),
but assuming that could
be
> >> >> >> separated (yes, I know, huge assumption),
regarding immigration
per
> >se
> >> >I
> >> >> >> would like to be able to wave a magic wand
and say anybody can
come
> >in
> >> >> >> but they can't get any public benefits and
(except for public
> >school)
> >> >> >> neither can their children below the age of
majority.   IOW let
in
> >the
> >> >> >> ones that want to work, BUT couple this
with extensive security
> >> >vetting.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Unfortunately it would really take a magic
wand to accomplish
that.
> >> >> >> :(
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:24:27 -0400,
"Mark" 
> >wrote
> >> >in
> >> >> >> message :
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"John Cuccia"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >>
>news:asp5m1l753qsstbceo4lafn6mf5i9h4h40{at}4ax.com...
> >> >> >> >> Mr. "I'm a uniter, not a
divider" is even dividing his own
party
> >> >now.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Hmm, Lott stands on his own two feet,
you blame Bush for what he
> >said
> >> >and
> >> >> >> >where he ended up? Sounds like
"Bushdementia" to me.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Too, I wouldn't risk too much money on
that division bet John.
> >Sure,
> >> >some
> >> >> >> >are pissed off at his lack of
seriousness about the border (me
for
> >> >one),
> >> >> >> >some others didn't like Miers (me too
again), yet others have
> >issues
> >> >with
> >> >> >> >him on this policy or that (me yet
again, on a variety of
issues),
> >but
> >> >> >> >never, *ever* confuse those
disagreements by any of those groups
> >with
> >> >a
> >> >> >> >fantasy that any of them would ever
support a Democrat in an
> >election
> >> >> > >> >> >> >agree that Bush thinking he could unite
people like Kennedy,
> >Durbin,
> >> >> >> >Schumer, Daschle (whoops Reid) with
anyone, anywhere, anytime
was a
> >> >> >foolish
> >> >> >> >thought, they're not interested>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5