« It wasn't the Blowout Preventer, etc. at all... it was GREED! | Main | Random Thoughts on BP Oil Spill... »

May 23, 2010


Thanks for one of the best summaries, that I've seen, of the issues involved. I'd like to see some of this clear thinking among our politicians.

My 1 cent worth for the discussion:

#1-3: Supporters make the "racist" claim because it's easy to make and requires the opposing argument to counter that charge first, before a discussion can be made. It's also inflammatory enough to make the news (and derail the conversation,) while reasonable discussion isn't.

I think that various groups have their reasons for not wanting the laws enforced. Some of these may even tie into the weakening of identification requirements for voting.

#4: In today's economy I think you'd find a surprising number of people who would take "those jobs that nobody wants," even at sub-minimum wage.

#5: Since most illegals are paid "under the table" (how can they be legally hired?) how does any of that money make it into the social security system? I suspect that even the money deducted from any wages they receive, as illegal labor, is pocketed by the employer. Otherwise there's a paper trail proving their guilt in hiring the illegals.

I think their "paying into the system" is mostly a statement of fiction used by supporters and that very little money makes it into the system from these people. Sales tax and usage fees are proably the only monies that do.

#6: Union representation would give the unions a larger membership and more money. The workers would likely see little benefit, unless fully legalized. I think some unions are opposed to the illegals due to competition.

#8: As you say, below, there are a few more people than just "hard working job-seekers" coming across the border. Terrorists, human trafficers, drug runners, and various criminal gangs. Some of them are these guys. And then, of course, there are likely to be a few petty criminals along with the "job-seekers."

#10: from what I've heard, the Reconquista Movement is real enough, but I have no idea how big it really is.

#11: The US also has some pretty tough entry requirements for legal immigrants. Visa requirements are actually enforced. Interesting that the law would be so much tougher on legals than the illegals. Why do people trying to obey the law get so little support?

Also interesting is that so many countries have tough standards for legal immigrants and much tougher ones (that are actually enforced) for illegal immigrants.

#12: I've heard that legal immigrants tend to be opposed to illegal immigrants for two reasons. COmpetition and the view that they've paid their dues, why should the illegals get the free ride?

Personally, I think there should be a guest worker program of some sort. People can come in, for a specified period of time, and subject to the same requirements as citizens face when getting a driver's license (prints, photo, etc.) When their time is up they leave, just like any other legal visitor, subject to appropriate actions if they don't.

Obviously laws against illegal entry would have to be enforced, and steps woiuld have to be taken to close off the border except for legal entry points.

They would then be able to receive legal protections, pay into the system, and so on. We would be far better able to track them, just like legal citizens. They get to work, assuming anyone is hiring, and we get to stop calling them illegal workers/immigrants. We'd also have some chance to stop the really bad ones from coming through.

Naturally a lot of human trafficers (coyotes) would be put out of work, but do we care about them?

I think there is a bigger issue at hand here than just the law. This is really a continuance of the long fought and often lost constitutional battle over States' rights. This case will most likely make it to the Supreme Court. This is really a trial for the validity of States' rights. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Federal Government, then the precident is set to make States's rights nothing more than a pedantic joke.

The founders set up our government to keep most of the power at the State level for a reason. The idea was that what was appropriate for New York might not coincide with what was appropriate in other States, like Arizona. The idea was that you could vote with your feet. Ever since day 1, the federal government has been slowly and surely encroaching on States' rights to the point that they are almost nonexistant.

People call Arizona's law racist, most to inflame the situation, but most people do not realize the enourmous trouble the open border is causing. Most people are unaware that Phoenix is #2 in the world for kidnapping (interstingly second only to Mexico City). The illegal presence has caused massive financial strain on the State as they receive social benefits but do not contribute taxes.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold the clearly written 10th amendment of the Constitution (which would be a refreshing change). If you do not like the Arizona law, then move to California, I hear those IOU's are really working out great...can you say bailout?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Drillinginfo Wireline

December 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Become a Fan