WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush signed a bill Thursday authorizing 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, hoping to give Republican candidates a pre-election platform for asserting they're tough on illegal immigration.

"Unfortunately the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and therefore illegal immigration has been on the rise," Bush said at a signing ceremony.

"We have a responsibility to enforce our laws," he said. "We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility serious."
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/26/bush.immigration.ap/index.html

Discuss.

This is the same guy who just last week said "We have never been stay the course". You can believe him if you want to but I don't. For Bush words are just words; they don't mean anything.

"We have a responsibility to enforce our laws," he said. "We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility serious."

If there's still any questions about the man's veracity let them finally be put to rest on the basis of that statement.

If we have border guards what's so offensive about the fence?

This is the same guy that signed a bill to provide 10,000 new border guards.
It ended up being 2000.

What happened to the tough George Bush???

What happened to the tough George Bush???He has been replaced by a man pandering for the latino vote.

He has been replaced by a man pandering for the latino vote. and corporations looking to pay workers as little as possible...

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/26/bush.immigration.ap/index.html
Discuss.
So it seems that those (who will vote) that are against the immigration from Mexico out number the Spanish speaking voters, otherwise he (God Bush), would not have done so.

Just before elections, hu!

What after the elections? ...

What after the elections? ...
If I had my way, high powered rifles and claymore mines.

and corporations looking to pay workers as little as possible...

Ok, no shit the corporations want to pay as little as possible. They don't want to shell out money more than you or I do; and there are plenty of people willing to work for a small amount since it is better than what they currently have.

I don't see you paying more than you have to for food, clothing, rent etc... So why do you get angry at the companies when they don't pay more than they have to?

I don't see you paying more than you have to for food, clothing, rent etc... That's really good.

I don't see you paying more than you have to for food, clothing, rent etc... So why do you get angry at the companies when they don't pay more than they have to?I don't break the law to pay as little as possible for food, rent, clothing etc. Companies that hire illegal aliens are breaking the law, and most likely are driving down real wages for legal workers in the process. That's a bit of a difference, don't you think?

I don't break the law to pay as little as possible for food, rent, clothing etc. You're right in the legal sense, but this country has all but de-criminalized hiring illegals.

The fence is going to be a huge waste of our hard earned tax dollars. Those beaners will continue to come through an alternative passage. It may slow some down but the earnest ones will continue to flow through almost as easily as they do now.

The fence is going to be a huge waste of our hard earned tax dollars..........the earnest ones (illegals) will continue to flow through almost as easily as they do now.

I agree 100%.

You're right in the legal sense, but this country has all but de-criminalized hiring illegals.I was surprised to see you praise WindWip's comment as you don't often take the side of criminals. I guess it's OK if they're corporate criminals who are only trying to make a buck.

I was surprised to see you praise WindWip's comment as you don't often take the side of criminals.You're right, that got past me. I liked his comment in general though. It's a good answer to any criticism of corporate underpaying for a good or service.
But yes, you're right.

The fence is going to be a huge waste of our hard earned tax dollars. Those beaners will continue to come through an alternative passage. It may slow some down but the earnest ones will continue to flow through almost as easily as they do now.Precisely. If people are willing to risk their lives and spend all their money in order to enter the US, an upright slab of concrete is not going to deter them. There are plenty of more cost effective ways to stop illegal immigration.

If I had my way, high powered rifles and claymore mines.
You probably never heard of: "Don't spit in the wind" ...

There are plenty of more cost effective ways to stop illegal immigration.
I think historians will look back on a great opportunity missed when President Bush and Vincente Fox actually had a pretty good relationship and we did nothing to help him develop a viable economy in Mexico.

I don't break the law to pay as little as possible for food, rent, clothing etc. Companies that hire illegal aliens are breaking the law, and most likely are driving down real wages for legal workers in the process. That's a bit of a difference, don't you think?

Companies that hire illegal aliens are breaking the law. Companies that hire legal laborers are not, and 500 would still complain about companies paying as little as possible in either case.

Illegals do drive down the price of labor, as they should - the price of a good should only be as high as the demand for it (a law should not dictate wages). Illegals shouldn't be here, but they are so we have to deal with the situation that we are in.
I don't believe in our current minimum wage laws. I think demand should be the major factor in what we pay people, not a law. Putting a price floor on anything is almost always a bad idea.

You probably never heard of: "Don't spit in the wind" ...
Was that supposed to be profound? Oh, and I think it's "don't piss into the wind".

I don't believe in our current minimum wage laws. I think demand should be the major factor in what we pay people, not a law. Putting a price floor on anything is almost always a bad idea.
Exactly. Hence my loathing of unions; the fucking price-fixing SOB's they are...

The fence is going to be a huge waste of our hard earned tax dollars. Those beaners will continue to come through an alternative passage. It may slow some down but the earnest ones will continue to flow through almost as easily as they do now.
I have a sneaking suspicion you're right. Given that alone, why aren't we laying land mines and posting snipers? No one here can argue that doing so wouldn't be the cheapest and most effective method of securing our borders. Look, the way I see it, they KNOW they're breaking the law, but yet they choose to do it anyway. What's the real problem with shooting them in the head if they IGNORE signs that read in English AND Spanish: "Enter ILLEGALLY and Die"? As I see it, nothing.

Illegals do drive down the price of labor, as they should ....

I don't think it would be possible for me to disagree with you more.

""as they should".........?!?!?!?!?

WTF?!?!?!?

I truly cannot imagne anyone holding the opinion that wages NEED to be or deserve to be **driven down** by anyone or anything.

The Corporations and/or companies who pay lower wages are reaping tremendous benefits [iow, increased profits] from being able to pay lower wages....YET, they have as their primary MARKET (for the goods and or services produced by that labor) the very same people who are suffering reductions in their standard of living that comes about DUE TO that reduced labor cost.

Why can you not grasp the inherant unfairness in that...?!?!?!?!?!?!

IF the

I don't think it would be possible for me to disagree with you more.

""as they should".........?!?!?!?!?

WTF?!?!?!?

I truly cannot imagne anyone holding the opinion that wages NEED to be or deserve to be **driven down** by anyone or anything.
Supply and demand. I've probably given this lecture 10 times on allforums. I'll give it again, but not right now since I don't have the time.

The Corporations and/or companies who pay lower wages are reaping tremendous benefits [iow, increased profits] from being able to pay lower wages....YET, they have as their primary MARKET (for the goods and or services produced by that labor) the very same people who are suffering reductions in their standard of living that comes about DUE TO that reduced labor cost.
If I was a laborer, I would start thinking about changing careers. Too many of them willing to work for too little - supply and demand.

Why can you not grasp the inherant unfairness in that...?!?!?!?!?!?!
What is unfair, who is being unfair, and to whom is it being unfair to?

Exactly. Hence my loathing of unions; the fucking price-fixing SOB's they are...It cracks me up to hear supposed capitalists make anti-free market statements like this (and see if I ever take your side in an argument again -- at least for a while anyway).

Illegals do drive down the price of labor, as they should - the price of a good should only be as high as the demand for it (a law should not dictate wages). Illegals shouldn't be here, but they are so we have to deal with the situation that we are in.
I don't believe in our current minimum wage laws. I think demand should be the major factor in what we pay people, not a law. Putting a price floor on anything is almost always a bad idea. Yeah having a large starving working population works well...

The funny part is the corporations would act like greedy fucks paying their workers virtually nothing. People wouldn't be able to afford all the stupid shit they buy and lots of companies would go belly up.

Business is very short sighted when it comes to economic policy.

Too many of them willing to work for too little - supply and demand.
Supply and demand will bring the death of corporations. You will have people working for crap wages and still not being able to afford food and rent. This will cause massive rioting and destruction to cities and businesses.

Look back at what happened during the industrial revolution. So many people were crammed into cities willing to work but unable to find such. Others would work but could barely afford food and rent. The results were massive rioting. In fact the reason why we have state run, centralized police forces was to combat these starving mobs. France even ripped up and widened all their streets so that people could not take large parts of the cities with blockades.

This also gave rise to unions to protect workers interests. They were far more militant and relevent then. Watch them come back much stronger if minimum wage is every destroyed. The only way business could keep them in check was through terrorism and harrassment.

It'd be an interseting expirimant thats for sure.

Supply and Demand wages = slavery.

Just look at China.

It cracks me up to hear supposed capitalists make anti-free market statements like this (and see if I ever take your side in an argument again -- at least for a while anyway).
Oh, so you're saying that unions don't drive up prices. Okaaaaay.

That aside, how was my statement "anti-free market"?

P.S. You never take my side in an argument.

BTW, I found a teamster here, didn't I???

The key is balance. Labor Unions hate the fact that corporations make any money whatsoever. Corporations hate the fact that they have to pay people. The only way to get some balance of efficiency and humanity is to have both of these institutions.

Second point: The reason most of these people have labor jobs is that they can't get any other kind of work. Leaves precious few options.

Third: Yes, the illegal aliens are willing to work for less, but does that make it right? These people have to work 20 hours a day in order to feed themselves and their families. They have bad working conditions and no benefits. If they complain, the company can fire them, report them, and off they go south of the border. It's sheer exploitation, and it's only a few cents an hour above slavery. It has to stop.

Just my 3 cents.

With regard to the original topic - you all DO know that Mr. Bush, in his infinite wisdom, has approved the building of a fence, but has not appropriated sufficient funds to build it, right? In addition, the modest appropriation attached to the bill can (and most likely will) be spent elsewhere.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush signed a bill Thursday authorizing the construction of a fence along one-third of the 2,100-mile (3,360-kilometer) U.S. border with Mexico, but missing from the legislation is a means to pay for it.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 is one of the first steps of a tougher illegal immigration policy touted by Republicans. Its signing comes 12 days before potentially pivotal midterm elections.

It also comes the day after a CNN poll indicates that Americans prefer the idea of more Border Patrol agents to a 700-mile (1,125-kilometer) fence. (Watch how Americans say they want more agents -- 2:07 Video)

Though Congress overwhelmingly approved the bill last month, GOP leaders waited until Tuesday to take it to Bush's desk because they wanted a public signing closer to the election.

But missing from the law are the funds to pay for it.

The act provides no funding mechanism for the fence, though a $1.2 billion appropriation was approved as part of a bill the president signed this month. There are no concrete numbers, but estimates suggest the fence would cost twice that amount. The earlier bill, however, stipulates that the $1.2 billion could be used for a fence, lighting, vehicle barriers and high-tech equipment.

A poll released Wednesday by Opinion Research Corp. finds that 74 percent of the 1,013 Americans surveyed are in favor of more U.S. agents along the border, while 45 percent said they want a 700-mile fence along the border. --CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/26/border.fence/)

You DO know that Congress appropriates money, don't you?

You DO know that Congress appropriates money, don't you?

Tell you what - why don't you hold your breath on that, and get back to me when it actually happens?

Oh, so you're saying that unions don't drive up prices.No.That aside, how was my statement "anti-free market"?The freedom that gives you the right to own property is the same freedom that gives others the right to collectively bargain. Unions (in theory) give workers the ability to negotiate compensation for the true value of their labor. Your new signature talks about not having any other man live his life for you. Take away the right to organize and that's precisely what you end up with -- millions of workers living their lives for others. A truly free market is a two-way street with both buyers and sellers having equal protection.P.S. You never take my side in an argument.I took your side here, didn't I? Or do you think companies that hire illegals should go unpunished?BTW, I found a teamster here, didn't I???I have no idea what you mean.

Supply and demand. I've probably given this lecture 10 times on allforums. I'll give it again, but not right now since I don't have the time.


If I was a laborer, I would start thinking about changing careers. Too many of them willing to work for too little - supply and demand.


What is unfair, who is being unfair, and to whom is it being unfair to?



ok everybody, everyone go take college classes for comp training, programming, etc., or engineering, etc., then all of a sudden those jobs don't pay shit because your job is a dime a dozen.

no immigrant workers, "illegals" etc, and suddenly those jobs pay $10 an hour? is this what you mean?