Texas lawmakers struck hard at illegal immigrants Monday

[SlowwHand]

Background checks on who? They're illegal!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
How the **** are you going to determine that one?

They can run quick checks on people at the border. You forget that India/Pakistan is a bit of a tougher border to get through.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Background checks on who? They're illegal!

Why don't you stick to discussing ONE topic on a quote and not shifting back and forth .

If Pakistan opens the borders, they ain't illegals, btw!

[SlowwHand]

Ooooh, I see. It's ok to have a tougher border there. (Slaps head)
So what it boils down to is hypocrisy?

"Everyone come on through, unless you want to admit you're a terrorist; then please form a line on the left."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ooooh, I see. It's ok to have a tougher border there. (Slaps head)
So what it boils down to is hypocrisy?

"Everyone come on through, unless you want to admit you're a terrorist; then please form a line on the left."

Yeah the hypocrisy of terrain .

Open borders doesn't mean just having people pour in undocumented. It means have them come to the gates and if they check out ok let 'em in. If they are assured of legal passage, they'll go to those gates.

That means people 'sneaking through' are likely carting someting they don't want the government to know or see... probably resulting in greater interest in government enforcement (who doesn't really care if its just people smuggling nowadays).

[SlowwHand]

You change the rules to suit your argument.
You won't be able to do that in court.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You change the rules to suit your argument.
You won't be able to do that in court.

Don't think so, Slow. Just because you can't follow along doesn't mean someone has 'changed the rules'. Though it is funny coming from someone who took one conversation thread and changed it from Pakistan/India border to US/Mexico and back again because it made his argument (or so he thought).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Caligastia
How? If after amnesty most illegals continue to work under the table, how is it a win?

Most of them won't. The reason is working under the table means you can't document your income so you can't qualify for credit cards, car loans, home loans, unemployment insurance, SSI, and a million other things. Plus most illegals stay in very low wage jobs because they're afraid of getting caught and deported plus employers deliberately exploit them because if the workers complain then they just get reported to the INS and deported.

That removes all of that and the mobility and freedom to chose other jobs WILL mean more money and more freedom for these people. That's why they'll do it.

[SlowwHand]

No, Imran. The point is, all countries have secure borders. For some reason, you think it's ok that the U.S. doesn't.


And, Oerdin. You remember you have a friend, and it's their birthday? You better remember it, or you'll be back to none.

"Oerdin's Friend (30)"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No, Imran. The point is, all countries have secure borders. For some reason, you think it's ok that the U.S. doesn't.

It's because I want all countries to have open borders, duh!

I'm a free trade kind of guy. Free movement of capital and free movement of labor. It's the best way for economic efficiency.

And if you think that all countries have secure borders then . You on crack.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Caligastia
The companies might not sack them en masse, but if there are still illegal workers available who will work for less than the newly-legalized, supply will meet demand.

Exactly. That's why it is impossible to stop this just by criminalizing the people who migrate. If you want to stop illegal immigration then you need to fine employers who hire illegals out of business. That won't happen but if it did then illegal immigration would stop over night.

Tyson Chicken runs ads in Mexico telling people anyone who comes to their poultry plants will get a job for $6 per hour no questions asked. Of course Tyson knows this is illegal but they don't care because a legal poultry worker would cost at least double per hour. Meaning the company saves around $1000 per month just in wages (not counting benifets) so even if they are ever caught the $1000 fine represents just 2-3 weeks worth of savings to Tyson Chicken. If the worker works for more then a month before getting caught then the company actually MAKES money off of the whole tranaction instead of just breaking even.

Tyson knows the fines almost never happen and even when they do they are so small they break even in just 10-15 business days. Thus they break the law and laugh at everyone. If the fines were $100,000 for the first offense and doubled for each additional offense then you would never see a company like Tyson hire illegals. They'd be bankrupted if they did and their share holders would never allow it.

Fine employers and the jobs go away. No jobs, no illegals. It is as simple as that.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It's because I want all countries to have open borders, duh!

I'm a free trade kind of guy. Free movement of capital and free movement of labor. It's the best way for economic efficiency.

And if you think that all countries have secure borders then . You on crack.

You are a true meathead.

Open borders will never happen. Not after 9/11.
We deserved it. We did. We were too fat, dumb and sassy. NOW, people have to disrobe at the airport.
Do I think all borders are secure? No, but that doesn't mean the effort doesn't need to be made; or to use you analogy, just because people use crack doesn't make it right.

You go right ahead and dissent. You're proving a lot, just not what you intend.


Oerdin's on the right track. Punish the damn employers that break the law. Like he said, jobs go away, SOME of the illegals go away. The ones that remain, why? If not for jobs, then why? The you have a big question to ask and get answers on.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yeah the hypocrisy of terrain .

Open borders doesn't mean just having people pour in undocumented. It means have them come to the gates and if they check out ok let 'em in. If they are assured of legal passage, they'll go to those gates.

That means people 'sneaking through' are likely carting someting they don't want the government to know or see... probably resulting in greater interest in government enforcement (who doesn't really care if its just people smuggling nowadays).

Yeah, they'd still have to fill out immigration forms and if there are any red flags they'd be denied but if they are law abiding then they'd be given a visa via the normal visa process. That's hardly uncontrolled.

It just means we'd be giving out a whole lot more visas and everyone would be free to work where ever they want in the NAFTA area. If an Amerian wants to work in Canada or Mexico then no problem or vis versa.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Open borders will never happen. Not after 9/11.

I'm sure a soldier sitting in a trench on the western front in 1917 never thought all Europeans would agree to form a union. I doubt the Frenchmen who watch Nazis march into Paris in 1940 would have thought it possible that Grance would be the senior partner to Germany in running the EU for 40 years.

It still happened. Just 10 years after WW2 it happened. It's been 5 years since 9/11 and Mexico certainly had nothing to do with 9/11 so what is your point?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Open borders will never happen.

Cause legalization of pot will happen Sloww . Are you calling yourself a meathead for that idea then, sweetheart?

Do I think all borders are secure? No, but that doesn't mean the effort doesn't need to be made;

So allowing people who want to work in the US to come in for work = letting 9/11 happen again? Securing the border from terrorists is a different animal than securing the border from people who just want a better life for them and their families. You can let the latter in while trying to block the former.

The problem with you is that you just think in black and white and then a issue in color comes around and you just can't cope.