patrick.net

thomaswong.1986 says

a person, who enters you home without permission is a "illegal trespassing" since

he had no authority to enter into your property without your explicit instructions.

in YOUR SCREWED UP WORLD VIEW .. they are visitors, and therefore committed

no violation or crime. In fact, you as a property owner have no right to throw them out of

your own property.

It is actually a very collectivist approach to view a country's land as "collectively owned" instead of "un-owned" altogether. Do you think the town plumbers should be able to form a union of their own and make the town pass a law that bans all town residents from contracting out-of-town plumbers? Foreigners in this country are not automatically trespassers; they are usually the guests, business associates or counter-parties of citizens in this country . . . just like out-of-town plumbers are usually in town to do business with residents, and in-town plumbers have no right to strip fellow residents of that freedom of association on reasons of alleged "collective ownership" of the town.

thomaswong.1986 says

US Constitution applies to US citizens.. not foreign citizens. Where does the rights of US citizens in the Constitution apply to foreign citizens.

You are very wrong on this one. The Constitution is the law of the land; i.e. applies to all human beings on this land.

thomaswong.1986 says

lostand confused says

Where have I said that- you hearing voices again??

so much for the idiotic socialist one world view...

Something really wrong with your perception- too much projection maybe?

Reality says

thomaswong.1986 says

at what point am i being afraid... perhaps the question should be

Since when did the liberals in the US began re-writing both the US and Mexican

Constitution to suite their world view or should I say "fantasy" ? And by what authority do they have to do so ?

I have no idea what the Mexican constitution says, but in the US Constitution, there is no legal authority granted to federal government for impeding individual mobility. Therefore the natural right of mobility is reserved to the individual according to the 9th Amendment.

There had been no legal restriction against immigration in the US until the late 19th century communistic labor union movement.

if there were no welfare state, and no affirmitive action, then there would be no reason to worry about illegal invaders as they would either become part of America or they would go back home. But, since taxpayers are forced to subsidize the hyper-breeding and cradle to grave needs of every invader since 1984, then the whole need to close borders came to lite. Secure borders , wow, what a novel idea.

What year did the SS ID number system get going? How long after that were adult males held accountable to have ID on their person while in public?

robertoaribas says

Only in some limited exceptions, and some of those would not even stand up today, have foreigners been deemed to have less rights than citizens under the constitution.

In most cases, the constitution says "person" not citizen, so there is no distinction.

Wow! and this is how far the lefties would go to pervert the US Constitution....you even provided a link to a jackass who believes foreign terrorists have constitutional citizen rights..

what a twisted mind you have Roberto... non-citizens have no rights.. as in no voting rights as you might recall, even as shown in the constitution... or is that voter suppression as you lefties like to call it.

Bap33 says

if there were no welfare state, and no affirmitive action, then there would be no reason to worry about illegal invaders as they would either become part of America or they would go back home. But, since taxpayers are forced to subsidize the hyper-breeding and cradle to grave needs of every invader since 1984, then the whole need to close borders came to lite. Secure borders , wow, what a novel idea.

The way to reduce an over-burdening bureaucratic monopoly is not to introduce another layer of bureaucrats on top of it, but to roll back the existing ones.

As for "hyper-breeding" and "cradle to grave needs," if such traits are genetically selectable from generation to generation, how little time do you think it will take for our native population to affirm those traits under the perverse selective pressure of a welfare state? The sooner such a system is bankrupted under its own weight the better.

thomaswong.1986 says

what a twisted mind you have Roberto... non-citizens have no rights.. as in no voting rights as you might recall, even as shown in the constitution... or is that voter suppression as you lefties like to call it.

Voting right is very different from the natural rights that come with being born as human. Voting rights are denied to people under voting age, but the individual person certainly has the same passive rights and liberty even before voting age.

Reality says

but the individual person certainly has the same passive rights and liberty

bahhaahaha... they have their own constitution... written by their own Government as it applies to their own citizens, where ever they many reside.

thomaswong.1986 says

bahhaahaha... they have their own constitution... written by their own Government as it applies to their own citizens, where ever they many reside.

As the State Department would remind you when you travel overseas: the US Constitution does not travel with you to overseas countries. Likewise, when the foreigner steps on the US soil, it is the US Constitution that applies.

robertoaribas says

the supreme court has ruled a number of times about rights of non citizens.

immigrants... not illegal aliens. Once again you keep ignoring the difference.

Had Illegal aliens had any rights... "habeas corpus, to inheritance, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." would they not they have due process to deportation.. but they have no rights on our soil.. and therefore shipped back home country.

where is your habeas corpus now ?

Why is it that US business/industries are prohibited from hiring illegal aliens ?

Therefore illegal aliens are not allowed to have US jobs (life liberty and pursuit of happiness).

Reality says

As the State Department would remind you when you travel overseas: the US Constitution does not travel with you to overseas countries.

remind me again what the IRS and the courts may say about income generated overseas ?

isnt it taxable under US laws ? its gets dicey i admit with contract-commerce laws....

robertoaribas says

you are rather remarkably dense.

and your loyalty/allegiance to this nation is very questionable to say the least...

It's easy to address this matter from a binary sense -- documented/undocumented...legal/illegal...it's easy right up until you discover a dear friend of yours has overstayed his work visa because he genuinely has no home to go back to, and his only life - as marginal as it might seem by most American standards - is right here. A friend who's devotion to, and fascination with all things America are so intense they border on the embarrassing; a friend who can discuss difficult concepts in his second language where a lot of Americans have trouble discerning left from right.

In fact, it's probably too easy.

One thing if for sure, when a lot of the people are made "legal" they will be eligible to receive fed/state benefits, because so many have no real job skills. I meet quite a few illegals because of my job, and a lot of them speak no English and some don't even know how to spell their last name -- in their OWN language, much less English I am talking Hispanic, of course. And many will be incapable of learning English. How could an illiterate 50 year old learn English? Come on.

Anyway, expect the welfare rolls/ benefits to increase.

I am sure there are plenty of model citizens who will do well, but there are many, many with third-world education and skills who cannot keep up with a modern society. They will need help.

Not about the legal , illegal issue. But when I was in the midwest, a colleague partnered with a friend to start an ethnic restaurant. Now this was not a fine dining restaurant and not a place where you receive tips. Their biggest problem-inability to find workers who would stick. They initially wanted to run payroll and were willing to pay a buck more than minimum wage -32 hrs a week min with upto 40 hrs a week. But none came around that were willing to stay a while. Eventually the guy's wife and the partner's inlaws all chipped in for the labor. The guy would go tend the reatuarant too after his software job.

I was just surprised-they couldn't even find anyone to work under the table and this was a rather high unemployment area. I think our govt has swung too far on the benefits and welfare pendulum.

I'm not sure if this is the case, but if they were made into citizens, wouldn't they them be required to pay taxes? Wouldn't it be easier to tax their earnings and remittances home if they were actual citizens vs being in the country in an undocumented capacity?

thomaswong.1986 says

Reality says

As the State Department would remind you when you travel overseas: the US Constitution does not travel with you to overseas countries.

remind me again what the IRS and the courts may say about income generated overseas ?

isnt it taxable under US laws ? its gets dicey i admit with contract-commerce laws....

Not sure how this relates to the discussion. Being taxed by the IRS is not exactly a natural born right or constitutionally protected right of any individual. If given a choice, the individual probably prefers not to be taxed.

@roberto,
How would you respond to those who came here legally, and their exspense and sacrafice? Do they have a greivance?

Should mexicans get a break because they refuse to follow the law in the largest numbers? Are there any other laws that mexicans should not have to follow?

What about those who have been sent back and paid many times over to sneak back in?

Does anyone recall when i kept trying to bring up how waiting in line was not a law, but is a sign of a healthy society? Legal immigration is waiting in line. Illegal immigration is an invasion. Right?

robertoaribas says

it would be the single largest forced exodus of a group of people in history. 12 million leaving for the border would be a humanitarian crisis on the order of something never seen in the world before: families ripped apart. Kids taken back to Mexico that don't even have enough Spanish to survive there

so what do you call the movement of people crossing into US border but an Exodus..

families left behind, some are hostages as workers send money back home as ransom.

after all.. the smugglers slap a life long loan to be paid off ... and how is that not an

atrocity on the part of Mexican govt.

Government projections on social security, Medicaid/MediCal, Medicare do not factor in illegals becoming citizens. We are broke by the way. Many people argue that by making people legal they will start paying into the system and everyone will benefit. The truth is many are all ready paying (small amount per person though) into the system but cannot legally take advantage of the aforementioned programs. This is fair since they break our laws by commiting identity theft by using other peoples social security numbers and fake IDs to obtain employment. They have children who are legal but the rest of us have to pay higher taxes for their education and healthcare. What will happen in the future is Social Security and Medicare will become Means tested and these people will receive more than you because they need it more. Their kids go to college free because they are poor and yours take out student loans. And they will compete with your children for space

at the same colleges. Overcrowding etc... You pay huge health insurance premiums they get Medicaid/MediCal. Essentially middle America is being robbed. why aren't people protesting in the streets about this injustice? The rich are rich and will not suffer. Their kids can go to private school. They will always receive good healthcare. It's the middle who are getting screwed.

despite what people say it is not about race as much as it is about resources. In the end this cheap illegal labor was not so cheap. Had the government protected our borders and upheld our laws we would have found ways to do the work "they" say Americans won't do. If we could put a man on the moon we could have figured out how to harvest lettuce more efficiently.

There's just no accounting for taste.

@roberto, thanks for responding.

I disagree with your position of selective law enforcement. Those earlier amd present immigrants that made big sacrafices to come here legally result in a society with a bond - for lack of a better term. They gave up all they had, paid every price, stood in every line, road a boat for months, had to find sponsors to be their ward, and they recieved ZERO welfare. If they got sick, sponsor paid, if they got in trouble sponsor paid and they went home. Most of my relatives that immigrated worked as slaves to pay off the debt of immigration. Of course the immigrants that were refugees, like the Arminian, Irish, Cuban, ect, all came here with a bond too, they did not have any life left where they were and they found safety here. They wanted to be Americans - 100%. Legal immigrants want to be Americans - 100%. On the 4th of July you will find an American flag flying at an American's house. On the 5th of May, or 16th of Sep, you will not find any flag flying at an American's house to mark those dates. No legal immigrant flys any flag the same size or hight as the American flag - they RESPECT and EMBRACE the culture, the system, the history, and the freedoms and liberty that America stands for. You will find an Azorian flag at my house, right under the American flag, and about 2/3 the size. You will not find a California flag as I removed mine and put it away after Prop 187 was blocked. That was my last straw - 1994.

The position of, "well, so much wrong has gone on for so long, and so many people are involved, there is no reason to enforce the law" sounds alot like the way the dope smokers pushed for their law. Right? I just find that interesting.

When you are going down the freeway at 3 miles over the speedlimit, and you get passed by a person speeding even more, you have less worry about getting stopped at that moment. Why is that? Because you expect the civil laws of speeding to be applied in a just manner. You naturally have an understanding that the reason for the speeding laws would also be based on some degree. They are there to help make for a safe and orderly system of passage - with all driving resulting in the same function of moving people/things over distance. But, if everyone else is going 90, they have an advantage over you at 65, as they get their people and things moved faster. They are risking getting a ticket for the gain of saved time. You are respecting the risk and choosing to avoid a ticket. They are also creating more danger, using more resources, demanding more CHP action -- while you do none of the above and sacrafice your time to follow the rules/laws, helping the system work properly. If you drove along and watched as all of the speeders in yellow Honda's were passing by at 95, right past the CHP next to you that is going 65 - watching you like a hawk, and you watched the CHP pull over all blue Toyota's that were going 67 in a 65, would you still feel that the blue Toyota crowd has no grievance? Would you have a greivance?

I submit to you that the strong fabric that made up the greatest generation was built with peoples that sacraficed everything to be Americans. The mexicans living in California at that time could gain citizenship by serving, but if you know your history, you will know what happened in San Diego and LosAngels between service men and the zoot suiters that refused service, but enjoyed night life with the ladies. Compair that to the service records of American Indians, Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, Germans, Ruskies, Poles, Sweeds, Jews, the list goes for miles of first generation immigrants and refugees that did not even think twice about taking up arms - many against their home country - in the name of the freedom and liberty found under the American flag.

I (kinda) disagree with the position of field work being something Americans will not do. Americans have lost the "hunger" - my mexican brothers are some hard working dudes and they stay "hungery". I stay hungery too, so I relate well to their position. They are willing to do whatever it takes to earn a buck - some refuse to do illegal activity, some perfect it - but they hugery for a buck - and I get that. I feel the welfare system, the minimum wage, drug use, and 24 hour entertainment are a large part of what has removed the work desire from many Americans - they are not hungery. If each prego teen had to tell who the dad was in order to get the welfare they get, and those daddys were put to work - forced if needed - in the fields, the need for farm labor goes down a bit, while the willingnes to breed as a teen goes down too - a win win for tax payers.

At any rate, a fully secure border is not a bad idea. Do that first, and then any other changes will make sense. I happen to think we could put many people (legal and not) to work on a large public project of building a huge wall on the border, and 3 or 4 huge prisons along the border, and ofcourse the support systems and towns that would spring up too. This would be a great "transition" system, and would fill some needed voids. The prisons could be where we send illegal mexicans now held in prisons. It's a good start.

Not from me. Legalizing illegals is a magnet for more of them to come. That grows the labor pool, reduces wages, and hurts the economy.

We can't turn into a welfare state for South America.

FortWayne says

Not from me. Legalizing illegals is a magnet for more of them to come. That grows the labor pool, reduces wages, and hurts the economy.

Growing the labor pool is a good thing. Do we really want people to work till they are 75 before retirement or having more youthful people entering the labor force to support people retiring at 65? Do you want the same loaf of bread at $3 or priced at $30? If the former, someone has to work to make it happen.

We can't turn into a welfare state for South America.

For starters, the new immigrants having to get themselves here means the cradle part is not required from the Welfare State. The Welfare State is its own problem; much of it shouldn't exist for either immigrants or native borns. The real beneficiary of the Welfare State are not the supposed recipients, but the bureaucrats and other government sponsored monopolies.

Bap33 says

You naturally have an understanding that the reason for the speeding laws would also be based on some degree. They are there to help make for a safe and orderly system of passage - with all driving resulting in the same function of moving people/things over distance. But, if everyone else is going 90, they have an advantage over you at 65, as they get their people and things moved faster. They are risking getting a ticket for the gain of saved time. You are respecting the risk and choosing to avoid a ticket. They are also creating more danger, using more resources, demanding more CHP action -- while you do none of the above and sacrafice your time to follow the rules/laws, helping the system work properly.

Do you actually believe that? Do you actually think speed limit is there for public safety? as opposed to revenue generation?

Never mind asking you about your support for slave return laws, do you turn yourself in when you order something from Amazon and don't pay CA sales/use tax voluntarily? Do you do the same when you drive from Nevada or Oregon into CA with goods purchased in these other states?

I suppose if you were a woman in Africa, you'd support the genital mutilation of young girls, just because you had to endure it when you were young.

Talk about being a "clover."

Bap33 says

I get that. I feel the welfare system, the minimum wage, drug use, and 24 hour entertainment are a large part of what has removed the work desire from many Americans - they are not hungery.

Agree so far.

If each prego teen had to tell who the dad was in order to get the welfare they get, and those daddys were put to work - forced if needed - in the fields, the need for farm labor goes down a bit, while the willingnes to breed as a teen goes down too - a win win for tax payers.

I can't believe some people can openly advocate slave labor in this day and age. The solution to the "not hungry enough" problem is not to have more bureaucrats telling the kids what to do. Whatever the kid can produce in the field wouldn't even be able to pay for the salary of bureaucrat wielding the whip, never mind paying for the kid's own food or housing. The real solution would be a removing the welfare state and lowering taxes, so that the youths have more job opportunities instead of wasting their time getting stoned, drunk and pregnant (before they are ready to raise a family).

thomaswong.1986 says

so what do you call the movement of people crossing into US border but an Exodus..

People exercising voluntary mobility.

families left behind, some are hostages as workers send money back home as ransom.

after all.. the smugglers slap a life long loan to be paid off ... and how is that not an

atrocity on the part of Mexican govt.

That's the result of our irrational immigration laws . . . just like War on Drugs and War on Alcohol create criminality associated with the transportation and distribution of whatever is banned.

Reality says

Growing the labor pool is a good thing. Do we really want people to work till they are 75 before retirement or having more youthful people entering the labor force to support people retiring at 65? Do you want the same loaf of bread at $3 or priced at $30? If the former, someone has to work to make it happen.

With 15% unemployment in CA I don't see that being a good thing. We have a lot more people than jobs.

FortWayne says

With 15% unemployment in CA I don't see that being a good thing. We have a lot more people than jobs.

Jobs are not manana raining from the sky or from the government-god, but natural result of voluntary exchanges. Someone willing to offer something for less actually enables more transactions taking place, not less, with cascading effect. For example, the lower labor cost that farmers have to pay for picking fruits and veggies leads to lower fruit and veggie prices, which means more retail and transportation jobs selling the fruits and veggies, not less! Fundamentally, that's how lower oil/gasoline price and lower government price (tax) lead to more business and more jobs.

Reality says

Jobs are not manana raining from the sky or from the government-god, but natural result of voluntary exchanges. Someone willing to offer something for less actually enables more transactions taking place, not less, with cascading effect. For example, the lower labor cost that farmers have to pay for picking fruits and veggies leads to lower fruit and veggie prices, which means more retail and transportation jobs selling the fruits and veggies, not less! Fundamentally, that's how lower oil/gasoline price and lower government price (tax) lead to more business and more jobs.

No one says jobs are a government godsend. By your argument why not just annex Mexico as a 51st state and be done with it or even add some more South American countries into the mix. That's not much different from what you are suggesting.

And it's how our government been doing it lately, why spend money on education when you can just outsource engineering and manufacturing, why both having good economy when plenty of desperate people across the border will come here and do the jobs.

I don't agree with amnesty, more people into labor pool where people are underemployed or often unemployed does not make sense to me.

FortWayne says

No one says jobs are a government godsend. By your argument why not just annex Mexico as a 51st state and be done with it or even add some more South American countries into the mix. That's not much different from what you are suggesting.

We already did that once: more than half of Mexico was annexed by the US. That's how we got California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, plus parts of several states to their north. I'd say, that annexation has been greatly beneficial to Americans in general, the local residents in particular, and even to Mexicans who have managed to escape Mexico and come to the US in the last century and half. The only problem with annexing even more is that the cost of throwing out the existing feudal lords in those "independent" countries would be too costly to American taxpayers.

FortWayne says

And it's how our government been doing it lately, why spend money on education when you can just outsource engineering and manufacturing, why both having good economy when plenty of desperate people across the border will come here and do the jobs.

In case it's not obvious, Mexican desire to come to the US has plummeted since the start of the Greater Depression. The society needs to educate its young better, especially when the adult population has been so brain washed into thinking government spending tax money on teachers unions and 100-million dollar school buildings so the town is in hock to the banksters and construction unions have anything to do with improving education.

FortWayne says

I don't agree with amnesty, more people into labor pool where people are underemployed or often unemployed does not make sense to me.

Then you are still thinking jobs as manana falling from sky. With so many Americans choosing to live off whatever enables them instead of taking low paying jobs, we need people who are willing to take jobs at market clearing rates so that necessary work is done, so our standards of living doesn't collapse.

Reality says

Then you are still thinking jobs as manana falling from sky. With so many Americans choosing to live off whatever enables them instead of taking low paying jobs, we need people who are willing to take jobs at market clearing rates so that necessary work is done, so our standards of living doesn't collapse.

Jobs don't happen because there is no economy for it. Adding more unskilled people into work force will just hurt the economy and strain our welfare system.

Go legalize 10 million people and watch millions more quickly join the welfare program... do you have the money to pay for 10 more million welfare recipients? When you do, feel free to get back to me about funding it.

Reality says

The only problem with annexing even more is that the cost of throwing out the existing feudal lords in those "independent" countries would be too costly to American taxpayers.

Huh?

FortWayne says

Jobs don't happen because there is no economy for it. Adding more unskilled people into work force will just hurt the economy and strain our welfare system.

Economy is not some magic government statistics. It is the mutually willing exchanges and division of labor. Jobs are scarce because there are too many economic rent-seekers riding on the would-be benefit of exchanges, preventing exchanges from taking place. Those economic rent-seekers are primarily tax collectors and regulators, but also the mortgage and debt mongers who essentially exact a sin-tax on people's overly rosy plans and dreams. Adding more costumed paper checkers at taxpayer expense in order to jack up labor cost is not going to facilitate market exchanges.

There is no such thing as difference between "skilled people" vs "unskilled people" so long as they can hold a job. The lower the cost of getting productive work done, the more chance there is to get exchanges and division of labor going again.

Go legalize 10 million people and watch millions more quickly join the welfare program... do you have the money to pay for 10 more million welfare recipients? When you do, feel free to get back to me about funding it.

That's the welfare program's problem. The sooner the government welfare programs are bankrupt, the better. The private sector can take care of the truly needy much more efficiently than the government monopoly does.

FortWayne says

Reality says

The only problem with annexing even more is that the cost of throwing out the existing feudal lords in those "independent" countries would be too costly to American taxpayers.

Huh?

You asked why we don't annex the rest of Mexico. Well, I gave the answer: it would be too costly to conduct an invasion and occupation.

Reality says

That's the welfare program's problem. The sooner the government welfare programs are bankrupt, the better. The private sector can take care of the truly needy much more efficiently than the government monopoly does.

Free market will never take care of the needy, there is no money to be made out of helping someone who has none to give.

Reality says

Jobs are scarce because there are too many economic rent-seekers riding on the would-be benefit of exchanges, preventing exchanges from taking place.

Welcome to free market that you rave about so much.

FortWayne says

Reality says

Jobs are scarce because there are too many economic rent-seekers riding on the would-be benefit of exchanges, preventing exchanges from taking place.

Welcome to free market that you rave about so much.

There's nothing free market about economic rent-seekers. By definition economic rent-seekers are not people facing market competition. Economic rent refers to government imposed monopolies.

BTW, just to clear up some common confusion: in housing service, the market rent collected by landlords that have to compete against many other landlords in the same area are not collecting economic rent, but the property tax that all the landlords have to pay to the town/city is economic rent collected by the bureaucrats of the town/city.

FortWayne says

Free market will never take care of the needy, there is no money to be made out of helping someone who has none to give.

That's simply not true. Free market for non-profit and charity means donors have the freedom to choose to whom to make the donations. That forces the non-profits and charities work much more efficiently than government monopoly on charity work.

Reality says

That's simply not true. Free market for non-profit and charity means donors have the freedom to choose to whom to make the donations. That forces the non-profits and charities work much more efficiently than government monopoly on charity work.

And if there are not enough donors? And plenty of non-profits are out there, hell almost every other health insurance company is considered non-profit... not very charitable though.

Either way we are way off topic. Main topic is legalizing bunch of illegals, and it's something that I disagree with because I believe it will reduce living standards in America.