Boehner Paper

[OregonSmock]

The Senate bill creates an extremely difficult path to citizenship, and increases border security to miltary-like levels.  Senator Rubio practically wrote the thing, and the majority of Republicans in the House still won't pass it.  The temper tantrum over President Obama's election/re-election is never going to end.  The country has never been more divided, except for maybe back during the Civil War era.

The senate bill gives the secretary of homeland security the power to do whatever they want with regards to border security. The day after the bill is signed they can proclaim the border secure an do nothing.

http://krwg.org/post/immigration-compromise-not-satisfying-skeptics-border

TUCSON, Ariz. — The U.S. Senate is expected to vote today on a surge of border enforcement that would virtually double the infrastructure and manpower already in place along the nation’s borders. Though along the U.S.-Mexico border, many say they are skeptical of the new plan.

The announced rush of agents and fencing to the border surprised many people. The plan, authored by Republican Senators John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee, calls for nearly doubling the U.S. Border Patrol from 21,000 to 38,000 agents. It will also add another 700 miles of fencing to the border and increase aerial and radar surveillance of the borderlands – all at a cost of at least $30 billion.

In Washington D.C., politicians called it a major compromise aimed at passing the most sweeping immigration reform in a generation. On the border, however, skeptics call it something else.

[kim carnes]

If people want to come into this country, I'm sorry, we're closed now.   Blame your ancestors. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

no one ever answered my question in the other thread.  why do people that say, "we need to secure the border", say that we need to secure the border?  to what end?  for what benefit?

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

[sys]

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

but why try to keep them out at the border?  you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

but why try to keep them out at the border?  you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.

I agree, but we already have laws against illegal aliens working, but those laws (and probably future laws) are ignored or selectively enforced.

Remember how the "self deportation" comment was reacted to by democrats. RACIST

[sys]

I agree.

good.  that's you, me and kat kid.  just 300 million to go and we'll have a consensus.

[steve dave]

I agree.

good.  that's you, me and kat kid.  just 300 million to go and we'll have a consensus.

you guys agreeing doesn't mean crap. the key is you all voting for someone who agrees.

[sys]

you guys agreeing doesn't mean crap. the key is you all voting for someone who agrees.

i don't think that's going to work.  let's just put it on as a ballot initiative.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

but why try to keep them out at the border?  you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.

Seems like it would be easier to keep them out at the border than police all employment.  Either way, I'd rather they just stick with the cheap labor and let they states decide whether they want to bankrupt themselves with welfare.

Also, illegal border crossing is a serious health safety and welfare issue that is completely ignored in all of this.  Which favors border security.

[sys]

Seems like it would be easier to keep them out at the border than police all employment.  Either way, I'd rather they just stick with the cheap labor and let they states decide whether they want to bankrupt themselves with welfare.

Also, illegal border crossing is a serious health safety and welfare issue that is completely ignored in all of this.  Which favors border security.

it seems way easier to police employment.  all you need is a decent id system and penalties for flouting the law.  way less costly and causes way less distortion than trying to stop anyone from crossing a two thousand mile long invisible line.  not to mention that currently (with the allegedly unsecured, horribly porous border), something like 40% of illegals arrive legally and overstay their visas.

illegally crossing the border is a health and welfare issue because in order to cross a border that we attempt to secure, people pay violent, amoral criminals to smuggle them across and/or attempt to cross in areas that have inhospitable, dangerous climates and terrains.  stop trying to secure the border and that all immediately goes away.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Well, rather than forfeit our sovereignty, why don't we annex Mexico while the getting is is good.

You're drastically simplifying things in your favor. 

[sys]

Well, rather than forfeit our sovereignty, why don't we annex Mexico while the getting is is good.

You're drastically simplifying things in your favor.

sorry for making things simple.

[michigancat]

What does sovereignty mean to you?

[8manpick]

What does sovereignty mean to you?

No goddamn messicans.

[Rage Against the McKee]

no one ever answered my question in the other thread.  why do people that say, "we need to secure the border", say that we need to secure the border?  to what end?  for what benefit?

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

They won't receive more than their employers pay in, and their employers need them.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

but why try to keep them out at the border?  you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.

Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care and other benefits.

Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."

[Rage Against the McKee]

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

but why try to keep them out at the border?  you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.

Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.

Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."

Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

but why try to keep them out at the border?  you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.

Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.

Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."

Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.

Wait - what's my solution?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

no one ever answered my question in the other thread.  why do people that say, "we need to secure the border", say that we need to secure the border?  to what end?  for what benefit?

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

They won't receive more than their employers pay in, and their employers need them.

Much will depend on how may children they have, but the majority of them will when you figure in food stamps, subsidized obamacare, and other tax credits.

[Rage Against the McKee]

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

but why try to keep them out at the border?  you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.

Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.

Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."

Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.

Wait - what's my solution?

See page 25.

http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

[Rage Against the McKee]

no one ever answered my question in the other thread.  why do people that say, "we need to secure the border", say that we need to secure the border?  to what end?  for what benefit?

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

They won't receive more than their employers pay in, and their employers need them.

Much will depend on how may children they have, but the majority of them will when you figure in food stamps, subsidized obamacare, and other tax credits.

Just how much does the average illegal immigrant earn? $20,000? $30,000? Do you have any reputable stats to show that uneducated illegal immigrants are creating a net loss on the US economy?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

but why try to keep them out at the border?  you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.

Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.

Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."

Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.

Wait - what's my solution?

See page 25.

http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

Wow, my solution actually sounds pretty good, except for border fence, which seems like a waste of money. Thanks.

[Rage Against the McKee]

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

but why try to keep them out at the border?  you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.

Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.

Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."

Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.

Wait - what's my solution?

See page 25.

http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

Wow, my solution actually sounds pretty good, except for border fence, which seems like a waste of money. Thanks.

The problem with your system is that it forces employers to select from unqualified applicants who are unwilling to work the number of hours for the same pay as an illegal immigrant. It inflates the cost of US goods beyond what the free market dictates while reducing the quality of those goods due to the poor quality of the work provided by the unemployed US citizens. This shrinks the US economy, leading to unemployment, reduced government tax revenue, and more entitlement spending. All it really accomplishes is keeping Mexicans in Mexico.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?

but why try to keep them out at the border?  you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.

Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.

Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."

Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.

Wait - what's my solution?

See page 25.

http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

Wow, my solution actually sounds pretty good, except for border fence, which seems like a waste of money. Thanks.

The problem with your system is that it forces employers to select from unqualified applicants who are unwilling to work the number of hours for the same pay as an illegal immigrant. It inflates the cost of US goods beyond what the free market dictates while reducing the quality of those goods due to the poor quality of the work provided by the unemployed US citizens. This shrinks the US economy, leading to unemployment, reduced government tax revenue, and more entitlement spending. All it really accomplishes is keeping Mexicans in Mexico.

Ah, the old "doing the work Americans just won't do, and doing it better, too" line.  If anything, this seems like an argument for abolishing the minimum wage, rather than employing a slave class.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Ah, the old "doing the work Americans just won't do, and doing it better, too" line. 

Americans will do the job if you pay them more and give them more time off. They won't perform at the same level, though. If they were hard working people, they wouldn't be unemployed.