Get real. Crossing a border doesn't put you on the same level as a murderer by a long shot. It's more akin to jaywalking. Does getting a traffic ticket make you a damn criminal?

i was addressing the severity of their crime, i was addressing your inability to call them what they are.

Did you mean to say "I wasn't addressing the severity of their crime"? ;)

If you want to get rid of illegal immigration start with getting rid of free trade and NAFTA along with American subsidies to companies that hire illegal immigrants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal...liberalization

This is more biased but I haven't seen any good rebuttal against it yet:
http://usliberals.about.com/od/immig...llegalImmi.htm

Here is a pdf file so it must be accurate. ;)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2007/2007-021.pdf

So what you're saying, lookout... and let me get this straight, is that the label 'criminal' applies to anyone who breaks the law regardless of severity or motive? So someone being civilly disobedient- sit-ins, protests, etc - is a criminal? So someone who gets a traffic ticket is a criminal?

The reason we need to curb illegal immigration isn't for any practical reason, but that they broke the law? Blind justice isn't blind and if it does more harm to a system than good, punishment has no place.

I think everyone makes some pretty disastrous predictions as to what would happen if we kickalltheimmigrantsout/letalltheimmigrantsin. The likely case is that not much would happen on either side of the coin. Our economy would be less stable, as with any sharp change in population, but the US economy is pretty damned enormous. It wouldn't crash/bolster/explode/urinate on the carpet.

So, if we're going to control 'who's allowed in,' especially based on crimes... why aren't we exporting more citizens? Because they have a right to be here. You see, they were born with their rights. Like Kings. And Aryans.

I saw this coming a mile away, btw. The topic shifted into illegal immigration almost instantly.:sniff:

You're a criminal too lookout.
Or have you not broken the law?

I can't remember what I posted it in earlier, but it was on a wine company who picked up illegals to work all day in their vineyards and then called the cops to deport them that night. Who's the criminal, the illegals trying to find work and get by? Or the big corporate sitting above the law.

EDIT: Whoops this is overkills, pierce said the same thanggg.

I put all the blame on Pierce--he should've known better than to post a wiki link right after my discussion-inducing question. He should have addressed it with his own thoughts on what American culture is. :cool:

actually they are both criminals and if caught should pay to the full extent of the law.

and yes, i am a criminal in that i drive above the speed limit. everytime i get caught i pay for my crime.

if you don't agree with the punishment for the crime as set by our dear lawmakers then work to change the laws, i'm only trying to get them to do their jobs and enforce the laws that are on the books.

what part of "illegal" immigration do you not get? enforce laws, get illegals out, punish those that choose to employ them. Update immigration laws to make it easier to gain legal entrance. This isn't a "get the brown people" movement. it is an attempt to live up to the laws that we have and to kill this as a talking point for the scum sucking politicians. figure it out.

Well, I DON'T agree with the laws, I've been saying that all along. I will always vote for people who don't agree with the laws, so I am doing a part. That simple 'If you don't like it, fix it' argument is crap, you've got to realize that, because clearly others don't agree with me. Also, if you come back and say 'well, if the majority of americans agree with it, tough titties,' you deserve a slapping. Many unjust laws were supported by the people, that doesn't make them any more just.

There is an option juries have to forgo punishment if they believe the law is unfair, btw. Law is not unbendable.

I'll say it again- Blind justice is not justice. Just because there's a law in place doesn't mean it's right. Punishing people without considering the law just because it's there is ridiculous... that's something the nazis did. ;)

lookout, we've been over the points you're bringing up many times...while you'd been away, I think. In a nutshell, I agree that immigration laws should be updated to make immigration easier.

But I strongly disagree that this issue is not affected by a "get brown people out" movement. For the most part, it may not be the case here, but much of the anti-immigrant propaganda floating around and even used as citations here originates from prejudiced sources.

Here, here, all. Cheers.

Can I only get 10 lashes this time please?

Sorry man, this isn't the midwest; there are a couple of unions, but they are far from universal. They are generally considered much more hassle than they're worth. Those who are unionized usually own their own businesses, they're the ones hiring other people to actually do the work. All the grunts--white, brown, or other--make exactly the same if they're paid in cash, and a little higher if they're regular employees (who pay taxes). There's plenty of under-the-table employment for legal residents as well.

I find it rather ironic that you suggest the illegal workers aren't "skilled;" they are usually just as trained and experienced in their jobs as the other people who do them, and often bring their own equipment. Are they ready to be site supervisors? Not usually, but that's not necessarily something they would somehow learn faster or better if they were legal residents. The number one skill that holds anyone back--legal or not--is an inability to speak English, which is not something they would magically get were they granted legal status.

Being "in" construction and excavation doesn't say what your cousins' role in the business is. Do they own it? Are they estimators? Are they ordering/delivering supplies? Site supervisors? Machine operators? Grunts shoveling the leftover debris into wheelbarrows? It obviously makes a huge difference.

I never said that illegal workers weren't skilled. I just asked a specific question regarding the pay of, and I quote, "legal skilled workers." I never implied I was contrasting them with "illegal unskilled workers." It wouldn't make sense to make that comparison.

They are heavy equipment operators, one of them has worked his way up to some sort of site management position. Their friends are also in construction: tapers, painters, framers, ad nauseum. I have another cousin married to some high-up engineer for some civil engineering firm. I wasn't talking about that in my previous post.

So your only comparison was that the legal employees make more? Jobtask-to-jobtask being equal, that isn't the case here. Legal employees have more opportunities for advancement within a larger company--like I said, the illegals are unlikely to become site managers, but they do often operate the heavy machinery--but the illegals are also more than capable of running their own businesses, assuming they speak English well enough to do so. You don't have to go legit for business tax purposes until you want to start taking credit cards.

My overall opinion on the matter is similar to lookout's (crazy, I know, since we're two of the very few people on the board who actually are affected by the situation on a daily basis): I am pro-immigration, overall. We need the workers--but we need them to be part of the same system everyone else is. We need them to have auto insurance, and not use the closest ER as a walk-in clinic, and not send all of their wages back to Mexico. I think immigration should be a lot easier than it is. I also think cheating the system, (which not all, but more than enough, do) is not an acceptable solution.