US President George W Bush has again stressed the need for agreement in Washington on immigration reform.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6539995.stm

The only reforms needed, in this country, are the total elimination of the "chain migration" provisions of current laws, and strict enforcement of all immigration laws.

You will never see enforcement at the border as long as the republicans are in the white house. They are for totally open borders like we have now.

I have been involved with this issue since the 80's, neither party has demonstrated any desires to secure our borders. In fact both have done everything possible to keep them as porous as possible.

no doubt, any terrorist could easily "penetrate" our borders and "erect" a massive weapon that would render out nation "impotent"...

no doubt, any terrorist could easily "penetrate" our borders and "erect" a massive weapon that would render out nation "impotent"...
::snickers::

I have been involved with this issue since the 80's, neither party has demonstrated any desires to secure our borders. In fact both have done everything possible to keep them as porous as possible.

Clearly, Bush is pushing for amnesty and open borders harder than any person in history. That cannot be denied. The dems have never even come close to this type of move towary an open, illegal invasion of our country.

FWIW: I've been involved since the 60's :D

America does not have an illegal immigrant problem, we have an illegal employer problem.

America does not have an illegal immigrant problem, we have an illegal employer problem.

From your perspective -- yes -- but from the perspective of the pregnant woman in San Diego that can't get a hospital bed for labor because of illegals jamming up the system and from the perspective of the out of work ... well, you catch my drift.

Your point is taken.

America does not have an illegal immigrant problem, we have an illegal employer problem.


We really have three problems, illegal aliens, employers who hire them, and politicians who will not allow enforcement of current laws. Until all three are corrected the condition will exist.

We really have three problems, illegal aliens, employers who hire them, and politicians who will not allow enforcement of current laws. Until all three are corrected the condition will exist.

What politicians are refusing to enforce current laws? Thats the first I have heard of that.

Clearly, Bush is pushing for amnesty and open borders harder than any person in history. That cannot be denied. The dems have never even come close to this type of move towary an open, illegal invasion of our country.

FWIW: I've been involved since the 60's :D


Who is pushing the hardest is of no importance. What matters is that neither party is doing anything to solve the problem. Both parties are content with the status quo. In fact the rich elite, of both parties are making money off the situation.

What politicians are refusing to enforce current laws? Thats the first I have heard of that.


Guess you've never heard of santuary cities either.
I won't bother listing all the Governors and Mayors who refuse to allow the police to even ask about residency status.
All politicians are not in Washington.

Guess you've never heard of santuary cities either.

Nope. Sure haven't.

I won't bother listing all the Governors and Mayors who refuse to allow the police to even ask about residency status.


Cheap labor is probably important to their campaign donors.

Who is pushing the hardest is of no importance. What matters is that neither party is doing anything to solve the problem. Both parties are content with the status quo. In fact the rich elite, of both parties are making money off the situation.

There is a difference between doing nothing and intentionally inviting the illegals in for a free dose of amensty with the point being, in the first case both parties are guilty and in the latter case it's the republicans that are nearly soley guilty.

Yes I've heard of sanctuary cities. In fact, they have been around for many years now, even a couple of decades. What has changed though, is nearly all the cities in the southwest are now sanctuaries.

There is a difference between doing nothing and intentionally inviting the illegals in for a free dose of amnesty with the point being, in the first case both parties are guilty and in the latter case it's the republicans that are nearly soley guilty.

Yes I've heard of sanctuary cities. In fact, they have been around for many years now, even a couple of decades. What has changed though, is nearly all the cities in the southwest are now sanctuaries.


I guess the Amnesty bill written, passed through Congress, by Ted Kennedy, then signed by "Ronney" in the 70's, and S2611, also written, and pushed by Kennedy, last year, don't count. Both parties have failed the U.S. citizens on this issue.

The fact that there are sanctuary cities throughout this country does not make it proper or completely legal.

If there were no illegals in say S.California,wouldnt the economey be effected.

If there were no illegals in say S.California,wouldnt the economey be effected.
everyone would have a job, and lettuce would go up a bloody nickle a head.

If there were no illegals in say S.California,wouldnt the economey be effected.


Mexico's economy would take a big hit.

U.S. farmers, ranchers, hotels, contractors, etc. would have to pay at least min. wage, to the replacements, plus the withholding taxes. A sum in the billions, of dollars, would stay in this country. Hospital ERs could go back to providing emergency care, instead of treating colds and minor ills. Schools would have smaller class sizes, with the majority of students speaking english. All in all a plus for the U.S.

Here's the important part: businesses would have to pay minimum wage. That is exactly why there are still illegals in this country.

If the State of California or any State for that matter were to gain extra tax revenue from deporting illegals,surely the money raised would just disappear into Government coffers,business's would become less competitive due to having to pay higher wages and higher prices,in fact the United States may loose its competitive edge.

If the State of California or any State for that matter were to gain extra tax revenue from deporting illegals,surely the money raised would just disappear into Government coffers,business's would become less competitive due to having to pay higher wages and higher prices,in fact the United States may loose its competitive edge.
Indeed.

If the State of California or any State for that matter were to gain extra tax revenue from deporting illegals,surely the money raised would just disappear into Government coffers,business's would become less competitive due to having to pay higher wages and higher prices,in fact the United States may loose its competitive edge.


I prefer to think that America's competitive edge is our inginuity and work ethic, not our illegal immigrant psudo-slave class.

Inginuity yes.Worth ethic,hmmm.The Anglo Saxon ways are slowly coming to an end I think.

Here's the important part: businesses would have to pay minimum wage. That is exactly why there are still illegals in this country.


Why do you people insist upon misquoting so much? My post said business would have to pay "at least" minium wage. Removing those world changes the context. Seems to be a trend on this forum.

Why do you people insist upon misquoting so much? My post said business would have to pay "at least" minium wage. Removing those world changes the context. Seems to be a trend on this forum.
It does not change the context. It is bad for businesses (well in their opinion) to have to pay at least minimum wage. It is not bad for the people. In fact it is good for the people. I am in complete agreement with you here, why the hell would I misquote you?

And I was not quoting, I was paraphrasing. Note the lack of quotation marks.

I guess the Amnesty bill written, passed through Congress, by Ted Kennedy, then signed by "Ronney" in the 70's, and S2611, also written, and pushed by Kennedy, last year, don't count. Both parties have failed the U.S. citizens on this issue.

The fact that there are sanctuary cities throughout this country does not make it proper or completely legal.

The 1986 amnesty bill was a product of Alan Simpson, a republican and s2611 was a product of Arlan Specter, another republicand and both were signed by republicans..