Fateweaver wrote:70-150B is peanuts compared to the Trillion+ the HCR Bill will add to the debt.

Fateweaver wrote:
I know quite a few of my friends would be far happier in Tx/Az guarding the border than sitting on a base in Afghan/Iraq.

helgrenze wrote:Sebster... My error.... the figues were portions of the emmigrant population as a whole. The US takes in 20% of the total people "on the move". Australia's number is closer to 2% of that total. Plus you have to account for people moving OUT of the US. The US has had more than 5.8 million Legal immigrants.. Australia has had 500,000.

But back on topic. The issue is people who enter this country via points other than established border crossings and points of entry. This is the first criteria to establish if a person is "Illegal". Not skin color or national origin.
But how do you know? you check ID and "papers". Many illegals do not have such documentation and thus would be unable to provide such even if provided a chance to do so.

helgrenze wrote: According to FEDERAL Law...."Hiring illegal immigrants carries a maximum penalty under federal statute of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine."

That puts the hiring problem on the Judges to ensure that such large fines are common place. They do not because the ones that can afford that much money are the ones paying for their re-election bids.

BaronIveagh wrote:Let us recall the FBI's 'Operation: Rollback' when they raided Wal-Mart's nation wide and found something like 19 illegal's working in Wal-Mart HQ.

They paid the fines, but frankly it was chump change compared to what they make. Since no single individual could be fingered as the person who hired them, and the FBI didn't have enough evidence to prove conspiracy to get a RICO charge, Wal-Mart continues to operate much as they did before.

Day laborers do jobs including construction, landscaping and household work for cash paid under the table. Those jobs have been harder to find since the housing industry collapsed here several years ago.

Standing near potted trees and bushes for sale at a Home Depot in east Phoenix, Diaz, 35, says he may follow three families in his neighborhood who moved to New Mexico because of the law. He says a friend is finding plenty of work in Dallas.

sebster wrote:
Unfortunately if you only used legal labour then the agricultural sector wouldn’t be as profitable. And we can’t have that. Better to pretend that is happening while dedicating local police to checking for ID.

helgrenze wrote:And sebster, My numbers were not meant as % of current national population... but % of Legal Immigrant Population world wide, which is close to 30 million people a year. Arizona has about as many Illegal Immigrants as Australia has Legal ones per year.

And the article I quoted earlier and above states that even though the law is not yet in effect it is doing exactly what you said... Controlling the Demand. The US Govt does not sue every joe yard work for hiring the illegals, Under the table and tax free. The State Can and Will and people in AZ know it.

There are provisions within the US Code for hiring Agricultural workers for seasonal/harvest help. There is actually a special status for Nonresident migrant workers.

helgrenze wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Let us recall the FBI's 'Operation: Rollback' when they raided Wal-Mart's nation wide and found something like 19 illegal's working in Wal-Mart HQ.

They paid the fines, but frankly it was chump change compared to what they make. Since no single individual could be fingered as the person who hired them, and the FBI didn't have enough evidence to prove conspiracy to get a RICO charge, Wal-Mart continues to operate much as they did before.

Have any facts to back that statement?
Walmarts "illegal" issue had to do with a third party company hired to supply people to clean floors. They were not direct employees of Walmart. It should also be noted that the Illegals they found were primarily Russian.
You can read the original complaint file in court here:
http://www.walmartjanitors.com/staticdata/Complaint.pdf
You will note that the Complaint states that it was a Contractor Hired by Wa-mart that actually hired the illegal workers.
Walmart paid $11 million in fines even though they could have fought it with a fair chance of winning, in part due to what they termed "Corporate Accountability." They now REQUIRE extensive background checks on new hires and have moved the Janitorial services in house.

sebster wrote:
Yes, but that'd be a nonsensical comparison. You don't measure the impact on a society by measuring total numbers, you measure it as a proportion of total population.

Let's say you have two towns. One is Butbugg, WA, has 100 people, of which three are serial killers. The other one has six serial killers, and is New York, New York. Which society is more impacted by serial killers each year?

sebster wrote:

There are provisions within the US Code for hiring Agricultural workers for seasonal/harvest help. There is actually a special status for Nonresident migrant workers.

Yes. And yet there are still a huge number of undocumented workers, because the labour is cheaper and the risk minimal.

BaronIveagh wrote:[
Achem:

"Some of the information in the investigation was gathered through the recording of conversations between store managers and contractor executives, the officials told CNN.

Investigators are concerned that Wal-Mart has kept using contractors who have been convicted of hiring illegal workers in the past. The latest sweep stemmed from a 1998 investigation that also targeted janitorial contractors at Wal-Marts, federal sources said. " -CNN


"On November 10, some of the arrested immigrant janitorial workers filed a federal racketeering class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that Wal-Mart violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. According to the allegations in the complaint, all of the plaintiffs were undocumented aliens who worked for a contract cleaning service hired by Wal-Mart. All of these workers claim they were paid weekly compensation of $350-500 in cash, worked at least 60 hours per week, and were obligated to work 7 days a week. They also claim they received no overtime compensation, workers' compensation, or other benefits, nor did they have taxes or Social Security (FICA) withheld from their earnings.

The workers' complaint includes claims that Wal-Mart (a) engaged in federal "racketeering activity," including mail fraud, wire fraud, and bringing in and harboring aliens; (b) engaged in a federal racketeering conspiracy "for the purpose of defrauding and injuring the plaintiffs"; (c) conspired to violate the workers' civil rights by failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime, and by failing to provide them with workers' compensation and Social Security coverage; (d) failed to pay minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and (e) committed other violations under New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and Anti-Discrimination Law.

The basis of the claims against Wal-Mart is that the company, as a joint employer of the workers, "engaged in and profited from a nationwide fraudulent scheme designed to defraud the United States government." In the lawsuit, it is alleged that Wal-Mart "routinely makes use of the labor of undocumented immigrants" and that these workers "present a ready pool of easily exploited labor." -Carol A. Entelisano of Tanner & Guin, L.L.C.

helgrenze wrote:Bad example really. For it to count you would have to know the total number of murders in each city attributted to Serial Killers. It only takes 3 identical murders over a given time period to qualify as a serial killer. Another Factor would be fequency of the kills, how often each killer commits his crime. Even if those in both locations were identical, The impact would be about the same to the social structure of each town. NYC would have such murders front page news and a large percentage of the population would know about it. A small town would have the same effect by word of mouth. True a larger % of the smaller town would be victims, but the sociatal impact would be the same.

sebster wrote:Because people are not told about the H-2A Visa and how to make it work for them year round. As long as they have jobs to go to, they can travel the country freely. besides, which is more attractive: Working for $20 a day, or having full employee benefits and decent pay for basically the same work?

Mistress of minis wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:70-150B is peanuts compared to the Trillion+ the HCR Bill will add to the debt.

I know quite a few of my friends would be far happier in Tx/Az guarding the border than sitting on a base in Afghan/Iraq.

Wait, someone needs to point out we should hire the illegals to build the wall for less, THEN kick them out

Seriously though, just in Az, theres 400 milion dollars a year in un recovered medical expenses thansk to illegal immigrants. Thats just one facet of the economy they harm. They arent paying taxes(except sales tax), they obtain benefits from state and federal agencies by fraudulent means (not all of them- but enough to make a substantial drain), and then theres the legal cost of prosecuting the ones that actually do commit crimes (aside from just being here) as nearly 1/4th of the Arizona Dept of Corrections population are mexican nationals.

If effective legislation is enacted, these expenses wont keep recurring. The ones that legitimately want to immigrate and can be useful/contributing members of our society, can still do so, just like the vast majority of european immigrants(and those from other countries) have done for years.

This bill may not be popular, it may not be perfect. But theres nothing better and the problem is escalating. If nothing else it has succeeded in being a catalyst that has accelerated action and put the issue back in the forefront.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:there was a town in southern Arizona i have read about that passed a law stating that any business operating within the city's jurisdiction found to be employing illegal immigrants would have its business license revoked then and there, with no appeal. If the rest of the state would adopt a law similar, then you would have another way of controlling the immigration problem.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Additionally, we (the American gov't.) should disband the Department of "Homeland Security" and all those jobs "lost" be taken over by the Department of Defense, after all, its what we military folks do "Secure" the country from all enemies. I may sound quite pompous but I truly doubt that an illegal alien trying to cross the border from Mexico would think twice or three times if he were face to face with the business end of an M1 Abrams sitting at the border.

Frazzled wrote:

Don't worry, once amnesty is given, they will be covered under Obamacare.

The Green Git wrote:
here is that whole Posse Comitatus thing to be worried about, though with the rate of kidnappings and murders occurring on the border we'd probably be able to justify an exception under the Insurrection Act.

Orky-Kowboy wrote:I mean, no offense but politicians aren't Boy Scouts, you really should react critically to any law that can impair your freedoms.

The Big Alienation
Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control.
By PEGGY NOONAN
We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."

It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."

All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.

None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.

Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.

Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I'm not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.

But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.

Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."

He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.

The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.

The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.

In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.

Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.

Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.

If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.

The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.

Frazzled wrote:I think this sums up a lot of the frustration on the border.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704302304575214613784530750.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

The Big Alienation
Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control.
By PEGGY NOONAN
We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."

It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."

All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.

None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.

Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.

Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I'm not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.

But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.

Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."

He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.

The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.

The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.

In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.

Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.

Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.

If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.

The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.

That sums it up pretty damn good. +1!

BaronIveagh wrote:The real problem, though you'll never hear a politician (other then myself) admit it, is simply that the boarder is too large to effectively patrol. It's huge, and much of it difficult terrain to keep under observation.

Kanluwen wrote:You do know that they run drones along the border, right?

Even with the UCAVs in the air--it's still a buttload of border to patrol, and drones do require refueling, etc.

Frazzled wrote:
Here's an idea. Lets rescind all Homeland security expenditures related to North Carolina. If you're fine with an open border here, I'm fine with an open border there. Thats about fair.