Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Mar 23, 2014
I would think that republicans, especially the affluent, consider themselves informed voters.
So if you really want a better representative, do yourself a favor and read about whom the GOP's choice of candidate says himself, he will be representing, once you(dumb Americans) send him to Wash.DC.
What do you call the people who voted for Obama, because he is Black? "Drones".
What would you call educated people who vote for a candidate, only because he has an "R" behind his name? "Dumber Drones
I wish you good luck for the New Year. And let's get a representative who will represent free Vietnamese -- not the ones who receive govt entitlement checks, like bankers and auto companies and corporations -- but the ones who will overthrow communist totalitarianism in Vietnam.
Pretty weird that this guy has no stated immigration policy. Republicans. A laugh a minute.
Yes he does.
He stated in a debate with Virginia Fuller, who now will run as a Write-in Independent Candidate, that he is for amnesty, because we can't deport 13 million illegals".
He is also FOR Obamacare and feels that that bill, only "Needs careful reviewing".
Really? I didn't see that in the link you provided.
And, really? Did he say 13 million illegals as you suggest he did with your one-half of a quotation mark?
And what about Obamacare isn't there to like? As you know, even the American public has come around. Pew has it 42 for v. 51 against, but 15 of the 51 are for a single-payer system of the type Hillary advocated when she ran against Obama. So, with that taken into account, it's more like 57 pro and 42 against -- you know, there's probably always going to be the knuckleheads who believe the lies about it told on FOX News.
Sounds like you're opposed to this pretty sensible sounding candidate with an R after his name. That places you in a pretty distinct minority. I'll still be voting for the candidate with a D after his or her name.
You would be considered a knucklehead, if you wouldn't vote for your own relative.
But I am an American patriot who love my country first, and facts trump typo graphical errors.
The USA is home to 30 million "illegals". Even though we all came into the world pretty much the same way some are still called "illegals"?
tee hee hee...i rest my case...
Yes, America is a Nation of immigrants AND laws.
Most Immigrants follow the rules of law and enter legally to become legal.
Name one other country that doesn't jail but instead rewards law breakers with all the benefits intended for its citizen and legal residents.
American has always been a nation of immigrants, not illegal immigrants.
I am tired of people lumping the two together. They are not the same.
Taking a stand against illegal immigrants does not mean you do not want immigrants. It means that all immigrants should follow the same process/rules. Does it seem fair that we tell some people they cannot come to our country to stay while we let others in if they do it anyway? If you think that there is no problem with illegal immigrants then you must be saying that you invite anybody and everybody to immigrate to the US and stay forever. Just come on in. Let us just remove the department of immigration. Forget about H1 visas, student visas, etc. If you can get into our country in anyway, you can stay forever.
" If you think that there is no problem with illegal immigrants then you must be saying that you invite anybody and everybody to immigrate to the US and stay forever."
Economists say the greatest economic utility results from open borders. I think it would be a good thing if allowed as many immigrants into the country as want to come in.
John is spot on in his assessment. Fact is, so-called 'illegal immigrants' have been invited here by employers who capitalize on their labor. Why don't either Repubs or Dems go after employers? Because everyone in the entire world knows that employers need the labor and use the exploitative wages that go along with it to keep grocery prices in check. Only a complete knucklehead would fail to realize that a great majority of anti-immigrant rhetoric comes from the Repubs who are appealing to their hate-based base of racists, homophobes, and xenophobes. Truusje strikes me as a very unhappy person. Go pick lettuce for a day or two. Then come back and reissue your hate-based complaints.
I think that the majority of Americans are BLIND to how the USA took shape.
A whole mess of "illegal" troublemakers came to these shore and murdered millions upon millions of the original inhabitants. In my book the "illegal" takeover is often referred to as GENOCIDE.
Admit it 'mericans...that's what happened. GENOCIDE.
The details of how the GENOCIDE took place is a big SECRET. Even as a teen in the UK we were informed about how the GENOCIDE took place. I still love America but history is history. FESS UP! My family was admitted as political refugees.
i rest my case...tee hee
Incidentally there are about 30 million illegals in the USA today! That explains the success of many businesses in the USA today! HOORAY! VIVA ILLEGALS!
Jose, it strikes me, that the very same people who resort to name calling are themselves thick sculled knuckleheads, and lack the facts or the skills, to articulate in favor of ILLEGAL immigration.
I agree with you that employers should be held accountable and punished for hiring illegals; and that's why we can't elect Phan Quang Tue, who is in favor of granting instance citizenship to people who ILLEGAllY entered our country.
But the very same people who detest the exploitation of farm workers, are the biggest opponents of Employee ID.
Also did you know, that for every crop/product produced, there is already a robot invented to harvest the fields? But again the hypocrisy of the bleeding heart proponents of ILLEGAL immigration, who blocked the mass production of these machine is astonishing to me. Check it out!
Another potential candidate pointed out the Judge to me, and I am so astonished that he was endorsed by the GOP, this has become my own little campaign to inform voters.
In an open letter to the Vietnamese community presently on his website, the Judge explained why he wants to run for Congress.
"I decided...to run for the U.S. Congress... because I believe that the free Vietnamese-Americans and the people of Vietnam should have a voice on the international forum; and at this time, the forum is the U.S. Congress."
I am astonished this candidate would receive either Party's endorsement. I believe members of Congress, whatever their background, should represent Americans, not the population of another country.
I also noticed the Judge is on both sides of every issue. He wants American leadership in the world, but believes in "a balance of power." He believes in the sanctity of life and wouldn't uphold abortion, but he wouldn't interfere in a woman's private choice. He believes in 2nd Amendment rights, but those right have "to be tempered to protect the general safety of our society."
So other than being the voice of the Vietnamese people, what does this candidate stand for?
So, Truusje starts things out by talking about 'dumb Americans', 'drones' and 'dumb drones', but then chafes when others call him the goof he is. Weak ego much? Wow.
And his penchant for imaginative selectivity seems to have no bounds, as he provides a link in the WSJ on farm robotic technology and claims that robots now exist to do every field worker task. Actually, the WSJ piece announces that 'progress' in robotics is being made, but then says -- first paragraph -- "We're not there yet." File this under: reading what you want, despite the print in front of your eyes.
His remark about employee IDs and those who support or oppose is utter nonsense.
M. Sher shows a rather astonishing inability to appreciate nuanced positions. According to M. Sher, there is something logically flawed about someone supporting the 2nd Amendment but also being in support of more govt regulation; being personally opposed to abortion but supporting women's rights over their own bodies; supporting US world leadership in the context of a world with a 'balance of power'. M. Sher's failure of intelligence on these matters manifests the dumb principle that is fostered and reproduced by FOX News on a daily basis. It is why we are in such trouble as a nation.
I'm against illegal immigration too, but my solution is much simpler. Just make illegal immigration legal. Problem solved. Allow as many non-citizens become citizens as want to become citizens. There is no crime in wanting to work.
John, You are a genius!
What would we do without Brainiacs like you?
You didn't only solve the ILLEGAL immigration problem, you also solved the high crime rate in CA.
You and Judge Phan Quang Tue, should be the standard bearers, and be the roll-models for the rest of Americans.
When your home is burglarized by a criminal and rapist, don't report it. There really is no crime committed, if a trespasser, enters your home uninvited, and helps himself to your food supply your money and your wife or daughters.
Brilliant!!! Absolutely Brilliant!!!
You must have a Ph.D.
Your plan will save taxpayers a lot of mula.
Just imagine; we can close down all the prisons.
to <b>"tue phan woe (or maybe not),</b>
M. Sher recognizes nuance quite well. But M. Sher recognizes even better, equivocation to appeal to everyone. I think the word is "pandering."
I note you had nothing to say about the one thing the Judge was not "nuanced" about: his reason for wanting to go to Congress.
to "tue phan woe (or maybe not),"
P.S., I would say the reason this country is in so much trouble is the hijacking of it by liberalism. The positions of the Judge I have read would seem to place him squarely in the liberal camp. I don't understand why he is running as a Republican or why the local GOP would endorse him.
Perhaps you haven't seen his open letter to the "Vietnamese Community." I tried to post the link, but the site isn't accepting links.
I don't see where you've said anything about immigration. I was talking about immigration, not "burglary" or "rape". Please try to stick to the subject.
Economists have understood for decades that countries enjoy the greatest economic benefits when they have the least restrictive immigration policies. Protectionist immigration policies harm the economies of both source and destination countries. The US would greatly benefit from removing its restrictive immigration policies.
After reading Judge Tue Phan's OPEN LETTER TO the Vietnamese Community where he states: "I believe that the free Vietnamese-Americans and the people of Vietnam should have a voice on the international forum; and at this time, the forum is the U.S. Congress." How about me, the citizen born and raised here in the USA? Or, how about the naturalized citizen who came to the USA because it gives them opportunities unavailable elsewhere? I believe our congressional representatives are elected to represent the people of this nation. States or US Congressional representation was not to establish forums for other nations. I'm also tired of hearing about the rights of minorities, who seem to take advantage of every social program offered by both the state and federal government available only to minorities. If you want to help the people of Vietnam, then go there and work with the Vietnamese government. There are many organizations that do just that through private donations. They do this by demonstrating the resources of the American people and our willingness to help and share go far beyond our government's ability to expose taxes for foreign aid.
As a voice for the independent Vietnamese people Judge Tue Phan states he would like to see freedom, democracy, human rights, and territorial integrity achieved soon in Vietnam. This is all well and good, but as a Congressman in California's Congressional District his priority is to concentrate and safeguard the freedoms, integrity, and liberty for his constituents.
Yes, this nation was built on the blood, sweat, and tears of immigrants willing to work to carve out an existence for themselves.
If anyone thinks there are other nations in this world NOT settled by an immigrant, then think again. There are no nations who population remains settled by it's earliest inhabitants. Man's quest has always been to search for a piece and a place to build a live.
To avoid turmoil and ciaos governments establish rules by which aliens must follow to enter this, or any other country. If you think the immigration rules in the USA are too difficult to navigate legally, then I suggest you review the immigration policies of other nations for comparison.
Spot on Geronimo.
I could not have said it any better. As a patriotic citizen, it is our duty to inform fellow voters about the real reason why Phan Quang Tue is running.
I am also educating myself what is needed to stimulate our economy and create jobs, Then I look at the platform of the other candidates running.
Unfortunately, I didn't see the name of Virginia Fuller on the candidates list for CD-11.
The only disagreement I have with you, and I would caution you not to generalize that, "minorities, who seem to take advantage of every social program offered by both the state and federal government available only to minorities."
Not all minorities are on the public dole, and just as many Whites, if not more, are on Govt. hand outs.
The Govt. has created this class division among the population. We, who work hard to put food on the table for our family are not happy to see our earnings to be stolen by Big Govt. just to jive it to illegals or to people who could work but refuse to.
Of course these free-loaders, will vote to keep these liberal socialists in office. Until all the working class move out this won't end. See what happened in Detriot and Chicago; both affected by high crime. CA is next.
Excellent post, Geronimo. If people sneaking in here from other countries can't find it in themselves to observe our immigration laws, why would John or anyone else think they would respect any of our other laws, much less legal citizens already contributing to our economy.
John, with your "PhD degree", and with your stroke of the pen, there was no need
to elaborate on ILLEGAL immigration other then what I stated in the first line. After all, I conceded that you had solved the problem.
And since your last paragraph was lifted from a website, I also found something for you, I am sure you would advocate for the U.S. to adopt the immigration policies of its neighbor, Mexico.
MEXICO VS. UNITED STATES: MEXICAN IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE TOUGHER
Posted by FactReal on May 8, 2010
UPDATE July 28, 2010: Audio: Mark Levin reading from this article.
UPDATE Nov. 19, 2012: English translation of the Mexican Constitution
(Scroll down for more updates)
- - - - - - - - Original Post - - - - - - - -
Mexico has stricter immigration laws than the United States of America.
Here is a summary of two excellent 2006 research papers exposing how Mexico discriminates illegal and legal immigrants.
MEXICO'S IMMIGRATION LAW:
(a.k.a. General Law on Population)
Mexico's Immigration Law (General Law on Population) 1999
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
- Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
- Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
- Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
- The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
- Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
- A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
- A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
- Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
- Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
- Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
- Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
- Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico such as working with out a permit can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
- "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
- Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
- Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
- Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
Constitucion de MexicoMexico's Constitution
The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country's political life.
Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country." Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."
The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.
If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast.
Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)
The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal
ones, in the public sector.
"Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces." (Article 32)
The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.
Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."
An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.
Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).
The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."
The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen's arrests.
Article 16 states, "in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.
The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."
1. ^ Mexico's General Law on Population (Ley General de Poblacion) accessed in 2006.
Website: Mexican Congress
2. ^ Mexico's Constitution accessed in 2008. [English translation] UPDATE: [English translation]
Website: Mexico's Chamber of Deputies (lower house of Congress) under
Leyes Federales y Estatales (Federal and State Laws).
3. ^ J. Michael Waller, Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home
4. ^ J. Michael Waller, Mexico's Glass House: How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens
5. Mexico's Law of General Population [current version]
6. Mexico's Constitution of 1917 (Published) [current version]
- ARIZONA SB1070: Short Analysis (and Amendment HB2162)
- ARIZONA SB1070: IMMIGRATION LAW (Links to Bill Text, Chronology, Guide)
- MEXICAN HYPOCRISY: They abuse illegal immigrants in Mexico but demand citizenship for Mexicans living in USA (video)
- L.A. Teacher Ron Gochez Called for Mexican Revolt in the U.S. (transcript, video) (MECha, Nation of Aztlan)
- Ron Gochez, Marxist L.A. Teacher Advising Kids Against Police (video)
- L.A. Teacher Ron Gochez Helping Illegals To Hide? (video)
It seems you've posted a long list of Mexico's immigration restrictions. If you're saying they're too restrictive, I agree with you, they are. But just because Mexico and other countries have protectionist immigration laws doesn't mean the US should have them too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Protectionist policies have historically done vast economic damage. Much of the economic turmoil during the great depression has been attributed to the Smoot Hawley rules. Personally, I'm swayed be the libertarian argument that less restrictive immigration rules will benefit the US economy.
"If people sneaking in here from other countries can't find it in themselves to observe our immigration laws"
Consider that many were brought here as children and entered the country through no decision of their own. Also consider that future immigrants, coming in under much less restrictive immigration laws, won't be breaking any laws. They will be coming legally.
As to those who willfully entered illegally, I believe an amnesty for them, similar too Ronald Reagan's amnesty law, would be the best policy. The one important difference would be that the need to restrict future immigration would be removed.
When my family came here 100 years ago, there were no 'freebies'....not a cup of coffee from our government. After a century of politicians giving away money, food, housing, medical, etc, etc, etc, we need to return to 'controlled numbers'. Financial 'sponsors'. We have had periods of controlled 'numbers'. There is no way to 'count' when they 'slip' in in uncontrolled methods. So just blindly 'opening' to all, so that in the 'future' they'll no longer be 'illegal' is NOT THE ISSUE!!!. 'Uncontrolled' numbers, and 'instant' financial benefits are two issues to consider, aside from 'legality'.
Historically, there have been periods of uncontrolled numbers, then when out of control there were cutbacks to 'zero' periods, like in 30s. Also,
IDs use to be 'honored' for free...everything. Historically, sponsors provided needs, so the newcomer was not a burden to taxpayers for FIVE years!! Then w t...nothing matters, nothing enforced.
I just finished watching CA legis channel, nothing but long list of spending programs for special food programs, medical, etc. for 'immigrant poverty'. Bill #...yea, #...yea, #...yea. I have zero tolerance for people who breed irresponsibly, while unable to provide basic needs for children they've already bred. Totally irresponsible. We need free condoms with every welfare check, every program, free condoms at every social services location. People use to have both pride and shame for irresponsible behavior. The pennies taxpayers would spend, would save billions of dollars. Free, accessible condoms along with free dental, food, etc.
John, you can't be serious...you're just trolling to get a reaction. But, let's say you are serious...how could you possibly justify flooding our already depressed job market with an influx of people looking to take jobs away from people that have contributed to this country for years? The 'anything goes' approach you espouse will create a chaotic situation for employers, local services, housing, etc.
I have a lot of respect for those immigrants that followed the rules, worked hard, waited their turn to earn a spot in line, deserving a chance to become a respected member of our society. I only have contempt for those that choose to circumvent our country's authority and spit in the face of law biding citizens (immigrants and others) because they can't be bothered to follow rules. They and those they breed do not deserve to be able to take up residence here as result of their actions. No amnesty....only a shove back over (or under) the border.
It's really funny to see 'free market' advocates now arguing against free travel for work across borders. The bias is stunning. 'Free market' advocacy when people are mobilized for more equitable wages; but then these hypocrites advocate total restricted markets when folks try to cross an arbitrary line in the sand in order to support their families.
If all these 'free market' advocates genuinely support this as a working principle (rather than just a duster to wave in support of one's racism and xenophobia), they need to recognize that, say, the free flow of goods across Nat'l borders (e.g., NAFTA) is nothing but the free flow of congealed labor. So to favor free market trade of goods, but to then advocate against a free market trade of laborers whose labor is embodied in goods, is simply racist.
Similarly, if one genuinely believes in free market, then one should accept the 'free market' principle that once demand for labor from south of the border diminishes, they will return to their homes in the south. You know, supply and demand. Why suddenly want to hire another 30,000 armed border guards at taxpayer expense to sit in their $100,000+ SUV's staring at dirt? I'd much rather use the money for a high-speed rail system.
No, these so-call supporters of supply and demand and 'free market' are only using their support in a racist, xenophobic way. Applied logically to human beings, suddenly these 'supply and demand' and 'free market' supporters show themselves as the racist xenophobes they are.
I am completely serious. I'm not saying there won't be dislocations and impacts on some people. Transitions are often difficult, but the end result will be a stronger economy, better economic and technical progress, and more innovation. On the whole, it will be plus for all countries, including the US.
History shows again and again that protectionism doesn't work.
Mr. Right, you are so right. John is an airhead, with a PhD begging for attention.
Notice how he gave a non-response to my analogy that illegally crossing one's border is no different from trespassing and burglarizing one's home.
Tue Phan Woe did not have an answer for that either. I wonder if Judge Tue Phan Quang would consider being burglarized, just a modern way of "Free Market Trade". My guess is, that he would file a police report. Hypocrites?
I am just glad that we found out in time, his true intend for running.
We would not want another Leland Yee, to fool us yet again; the biggest opponent to restrict us from exercising our 2nd. Amendment rights, is himself an ILLEGAL gun trafficker.
Talk about HYPOCRITES, Tue Phan?
Truusje shows a child's inability to think through and respond to comments from both John and myself. Cognitively overloaded, he simply stamps his feet and claims no one has responded to his tortured analogy -- so tortured as to cause a serious headache for anyone over eleven years old who chooses to consider it.
Fact: undocumented workers from other countries have been invited to live and work here by the Americans who employ them. The undocumented workers offer their labor in exchange for a wage. Criminals who break into your home have not been invited to do so; criminals who break into your home are not responding to invitations to exchange labor for a wage. Could anything be any more clear? (Apparently this is too complex for Truusje.)
Fact: calling undocumented workers 'illegals' is akin to calling 95% of drivers who exceed the speed limit on the interstate 'illegals'. Yes, it is against the law to live and work in the United States without proper documentation. Yes, it is against the law to drive in excess of the posted speed limit. Are undocumented workers 'illegals'? No. No more than someone autoing 43 miles per hour in a 40 zone.
Rather than attempt such transparently dumb analogies as he has offered, Truusje needs to wake up and deal with his deeply entrenched xenophobia. Odds are he won't.
Tu Phan is running as a Republican. A look at Republican Party platforms, ideology, and practices tells me all I need to know. I will not be voting for this guy.
"Notice how he gave a non-response to my analogy that illegally crossing one's border is no different from trespassing and burglarizing one's home."
I'd be happy to respond. In the case of a young child who was brought to this country against his/her own will, the analogy breaks down completely. The child committed no crime.
In the case of new immigrants, who would be immigrate legally and without restriction in the future, again no crime would be committed.
In the case of adults knowingly immigrating illegally, I would say it is not at all comparable to residential burglary. I would say it would be loosely more like exaggerating the valued of a charitable donation on a tax return. Here the "victim" of the offense would be the taxpayers in general, not an individual's home who was being burglarized.
Thanks, I'd only add that it still hasn't been established that undocumented workers place a burden on 'taxpayers'. For undocumented workers pay taxes as well. Several studies have 'shown' that undocumented workers add far more to our economy than they take from it.
Good point Tu Phan Woe. I've read that some economists believe that illegal immigrants are a net plus for the economy.
Undocumented workers might pay sales tax, just like foreign visitors would while on vacation shopping, but beyond that, they don't pay a dime towards their upkeep. Most are paid under the table, which means no SIT, SS Medicare, or SDI taxes are remitted. They use benefits they have no paid into, so they are in fact a burden.
Tu, you may be thinking of the illegals who use fake SSN's and may be forced to pay into the system, which only compounds their original crime of coming here illegally in the first place. I'm sure their continued criminal acts make for a good example for young offspring. Maybe you were brought up that way, without respect for any laws except the law of the jungle, but using your brood of kids as an excuse for this kind of behavior is weak, lazy and childish.
If one or both of my parents were in this country without documentation, and this in order to improve substantially our family situation, I would be very proud of them.
As for your other erroneous remarks, it's clear you haven't read any serious literature (which will surprise no one). Many undocumented workers, probably most of them, pay income taxes, both state and federal, and social security. Yes, because the numbers are usually fraudulent, they are not eligible to collect on their social security payments when they reach a certain age. All this is unredeemed tax contribution to state and fed govt. All this could cause consternation only for a complete xenophobe (which, of course, as we know from registered lib is a dis, goes hand in hand with his racism and homophobia).
My hunch is that Lib is envious of undocumented workers. Hard-working, committed to their families, they'd never consider staying at home and living off their wife's earnings. Ring a bell, Lib?
So, Lib, any response to my earlier postings regarding free markets, congealed labor, and 'laws' of supply and demand? Or to John's? Didn't think so, as you seem unable to go much beyond your own childish, hateful rants.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Bread and Circuses
By Tom Cushing | 4 comments | 423 views
Pleasanton school trustees move toward a school bond
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 285 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
© 2016 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.