From: "Gary Britt" 

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