From: Ellen K. 

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