Illegal immigration

[Derek L. Nielsen]

What do the members here feel about the next big battle, immigration reform? I have attached a document as reference to hear some thoughts.

[Derek L. Nielsen]

The not nice argument cannot negate the rule of law. Further than a society of greed, we have become a society of hyper-political correctness. This hyper-political correctness has become so invasive that people can selectively decide which of the nation's laws they abide by. With this mentality it would also say that if I want a Ford GT why should I have to save and wait? I can just go to the lot, ask for a test drive, and not come back. What would be the problem with that? The problem is that it is someone elses property, a tangable asset. What is being stolen of hijacked by illegal immigration are intangable assets that you can not readily see like quality ER healthcare and education. America is only now coming to see the drastic effects illegal immigration has on the overall economy. Making those intangable thefts visible should be the focus here. Compation has its place, but it is not to replace the rule of law.

We also can site the simple economic laws of supply and demand with those already here. The economic downturn has already shown us that people here illegally will go home if the reward in not greater than the risk (I.E. no jobs versus the risk of being caught here illegally). This is where the argument of holding companies big or small accountable with existing laws and possibly new laws will dictate that if the supply of jobs for illegals dries up than the big reward, jobs, adds significantly higher to the risk side. The same holds true for illegals being able to qualify for social benefits. We cannot have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for all our countries laws and services or we will find our soverenty in great peril.

sean higgins said:

Today we face the consequences of having it too easy. Now Greed is revered. Ceo's in the 70's earned 10 times as much as the average worker; now it's 50 times as much. Donald Trump is America's hero, with his ridiculous hair and despicable attitude-he is actually a charicature, but still a hero. And when it catches up to us, as it has with this downturn (call it what it is-the Second Depression), we don't gird our loins, we look for bailouts(which remains superior to riots and breadlines).In many ways America needs this wake-up call. And the scary part is that the wake-up call is still in the process of occurring.
As a result, arguments that The Greatest Generation would have laughed at are viewed with favor. After all it is nicer to be nice when you can- your mother certainly taught you that more can be gained with sugar than lemons. Unfortunately, sometimes you need to make lemonaid.
In the end, the PTA holds sway. The same crowd that banned the Three Stooges here in Boston in the 70's ( Cleveland was the only other city in America that did so) now argues for niceness. That is the essence of the pro-illegal-immigrant argument. It's not nice to separate families, to build fences(what ever happened to fences making good neighbors) etc.

[Kenneth Carter]

All of these “We can’t do this and we can’t do that” arguments will vanish if, God forbid, some day in the future a mushroom cloud appears over one of our cities and it is determined that the bomb or components for the bomb were simply carried across our largely open borders. If tens of thousands of people can come across undetected, what else can? What might they have carried in with them?
My second point is a response to the “we can’t (or won’t) deport twelve million people” argument. We can’t apprehend all of the people that rob banks either but this is not commonly viewed as an argument that we should not try and apprehend those that we can. Agreeing to amnesty because illegal immigration is too big a problem and it will be viewed as unkind to uproot settled criminals is like making the argument that even if I am found to have sneaked into the Waldorf Astoria hotel and have spent the night I am still entitled to the free continental breakfast and newspaper the next morning. The rule of law must be upheld or there will be no respect for any laws. Further, those persons wishing to enter the US and become citizens of this great land and who wish to do it the prescribed, legal way are being slapped in the face for being such fools as to obey the law. When we allow the widespread gaining of greater benefits by breaking laws we should not be surprised that there is lawlessness.


Derek L. Nielsen said:

The not nice argument cannot negate the rule of law. Further than a society of greed, we have become a society of hyper-political correctness. This hyper-political correctness has become so invasive that people can selectively decide which of the nation's laws they abide by. With this mentality it would also say that if I want a Ford GT why should I have to save and wait? I can just go to the lot, ask for a test drive, and not come back. What would be the problem with that? The problem is that it is someone elses property, a tangable asset. What is being stolen of hijacked by illegal immigration are intangable assets that you can not readily see like quality ER healthcare and education. America is only now coming to see the drastic effects illegal immigration has on the overall economy. Making those intangable thefts visible should be the focus here. Compation has its place, but it is not to replace the rule of law.

We also can site the simple economic laws of supply and demand with those already here. The economic downturn has already shown us that people here illegally will go home if the reward in not greater than the risk (I.E. no jobs versus the risk of being caught here illegally). This is where the argument of holding companies big or small accountable with existing laws and possibly new laws will dictate that if the supply of jobs for illegals dries up than the big reward, jobs, adds significantly higher to the risk side. The same holds true for illegals being able to qualify for social benefits. We cannot have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for all our countries laws and services or we will find our soverenty in great peril.

sean higgins said:

Today we face the consequences of having it too easy. Now Greed is revered. Ceo's in the 70's earned 10 times as much as the average worker; now it's 50 times as much. Donald Trump is America's hero, with his ridiculous hair and despicable attitude-he is actually a charicature, but still a hero. And when it catches up to us, as it has with this downturn (call it what it is-the Second Depression), we don't gird our loins, we look for bailouts(which remains superior to riots and breadlines).In many ways America needs this wake-up call. And the scary part is that the wake-up call is still in the process of occurring.
As a result, arguments that The Greatest Generation would have laughed at are viewed with favor. After all it is nicer to be nice when you can- your mother certainly taught you that more can be gained with sugar than lemons. Unfortunately, sometimes you need to make lemonaid.
In the end, the PTA holds sway. The same crowd that banned the Three Stooges here in Boston in the 70's ( Cleveland was the only other city in America that did so) now argues for niceness. That is the essence of the pro-illegal-immigrant argument. It's not nice to separate families, to build fences(what ever happened to fences making good neighbors) etc.

[Ali]

I could not agree with this more from Kenneth. I also want to add that we have a problem right here in MA that I want to point out. The new forms for Masshealth Ins. for 2010 now have a spot for people who are here illegally. I have reviewed this form myself to check it over for verification. It also states that these people do NOT need a social security number (THEY DO NOT HAVE ONE IF ILLEGAL) and that they will NOT be reported to the Goverment NOR the IRS. I do not believe that have had this before. In addition, it is one thing for people who live here in our state who need help and get assistance, but who do you think is going to pay to insure the illegals here in MA? This is the same debate going on in Washington now, except it is right in our own state happening. Has anyone else seen the forms? If not, anyone can request a medicaid form. I thought this should be brought to atenttion as well.

cite>Kenneth Carter said:

All of these “We can’t do this and we can’t do that” arguments will vanish if, God forbid, some day in the future a mushroom cloud appears over one of our cities and it is determined that the bomb or components for the bomb were simply carried across our largely open borders. If tens of thousands of people can come across undetected, what else can? What might they have carried in with them?
My second point is a response to the “we can’t (or won’t) deport twelve million people” argument. We can’t apprehend all of the people that rob banks either but this is not commonly viewed as an argument that we should not try and apprehend those that we can. Agreeing to amnesty because illegal immigration is too big a problem and it will be viewed as unkind to uproot settled criminals is like making the argument that even if I am found to have sneaked into the Waldorf Astoria hotel and have spent the night I am still entitled to the free continental breakfast and newspaper the next morning. The rule of law must be upheld or there will be no respect for any laws. Further, those persons wishing to enter the US and become citizens of this great land and who wish to do it the prescribed, legal way are being slapped in the face for being such fools as to obey the law. When we allow the widespread gaining of greater benefits by breaking laws we should not be surprised that there is lawlessness.


Derek L. Nielsen said:

The not nice argument cannot negate the rule of law. Further than a society of greed, we have become a society of hyper-political correctness. This hyper-political correctness has become so invasive that people can selectively decide which of the nation's laws they abide by. With this mentality it would also say that if I want a Ford GT why should I have to save and wait? I can just go to the lot, ask for a test drive, and not come back. What would be the problem with that? The problem is that it is someone elses property, a tangable asset. What is being stolen of hijacked by illegal immigration are intangable assets that you can not readily see like quality ER healthcare and education. America is only now coming to see the drastic effects illegal immigration has on the overall economy. Making those intangable thefts visible should be the focus here. Compation has its place, but it is not to replace the rule of law.

We also can site the simple economic laws of supply and demand with those already here. The economic downturn has already shown us that people here illegally will go home if the reward in not greater than the risk (I.E. no jobs versus the risk of being caught here illegally). This is where the argument of holding companies big or small accountable with existing laws and possibly new laws will dictate that if the supply of jobs for illegals dries up than the big reward, jobs, adds significantly higher to the risk side. The same holds true for illegals being able to qualify for social benefits. We cannot have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for all our countries laws and services or we will find our soverenty in great peril.

sean higgins said:

Today we face the consequences of having it too easy. Now Greed is revered. Ceo's in the 70's earned 10 times as much as the average worker; now it's 50 times as much. Donald Trump is America's hero, with his ridiculous hair and despicable attitude-he is actually a charicature, but still a hero. And when it catches up to us, as it has with this downturn (call it what it is-the Second Depression), we don't gird our loins, we look for bailouts(which remains superior to riots and breadlines).In many ways America needs this wake-up call. And the scary part is that the wake-up call is still in the process of occurring.
As a result, arguments that The Greatest Generation would have laughed at are viewed with favor. After all it is nicer to be nice when you can- your mother certainly taught you that more can be gained with sugar than lemons. Unfortunately, sometimes you need to make lemonaid.
In the end, the PTA holds sway. The same crowd that banned the Three Stooges here in Boston in the 70's ( Cleveland was the only other city in America that did so) now argues for niceness. That is the essence of the pro-illegal-immigrant argument. It's not nice to separate families, to build fences(what ever happened to fences making good neighbors) etc.

[Wayne Lestan]

Illegal immigration is just that, illegal. I am seriously concerned about the way our elected officials pick and choose the laws they want to enforce.

As a practical matter, just enforcing legal worker laws and requiring a picture ID for welfare including healthcare would go a long way to limiting illegal immigration.

Congress needs to look at the policy of granting citizenship to all people born on our soil. What purpose is it serving in this day and age? What purpose did it ever serve? I don't believe it serves the US citizens at all.

[Ali]

Exactly Wayne.

[Wayne Lestan]

Ali said:

I could not agree with this more from Kenneth. I also want to add that we have a problem right here in MA that I want to point out. The new forms for Masshealth Ins. for 2010 now have a spot for people who are here illegally. I have reviewed this form myself to check it over for verification. It also states that these people do NOT need a social security number (THEY DO NOT HAVE ONE IF ILLEGAL) and that they will NOT be reported to the Goverment NOR the IRS. I do not believe that have had this before. In addition, it is one thing for people who live here in our state who need help and get assistance, but who do you think is going to pay to insure the illegals here in MA? This is the same debate going on in Washington now, except it is right in our own state happening. Has anyone else seen the forms? If not, anyone can request a medicaid form. I thought this should be brought to atenttion as well.

cite>Kenneth Carter said:

All of these “We can’t do this and we can’t do that” arguments will vanish if, God forbid, some day in the future a mushroom cloud appears over one of our cities and it is determined that the bomb or components for the bomb were simply carried across our largely open borders. If tens of thousands of people can come across undetected, what else can? What might they have carried in with them?
My second point is a response to the “we can’t (or won’t) deport twelve million people” argument. We can’t apprehend all of the people that rob banks either but this is not commonly viewed as an argument that we should not try and apprehend those that we can. Agreeing to amnesty because illegal immigration is too big a problem and it will be viewed as unkind to uproot settled criminals is like making the argument that even if I am found to have sneaked into the Waldorf Astoria hotel and have spent the night I am still entitled to the free continental breakfast and newspaper the next morning. The rule of law must be upheld or there will be no respect for any laws. Further, those persons wishing to enter the US and become citizens of this great land and who wish to do it the prescribed, legal way are being slapped in the face for being such fools as to obey the law. When we allow the widespread gaining of greater benefits by breaking laws we should not be surprised that there is lawlessness.


Derek L. Nielsen said:

The not nice argument cannot negate the rule of law. Further than a society of greed, we have become a society of hyper-political correctness. This hyper-political correctness has become so invasive that people can selectively decide which of the nation's laws they abide by. With this mentality it would also say that if I want a Ford GT why should I have to save and wait? I can just go to the lot, ask for a test drive, and not come back. What would be the problem with that? The problem is that it is someone elses property, a tangable asset. What is being stolen of hijacked by illegal immigration are intangable assets that you can not readily see like quality ER healthcare and education. America is only now coming to see the drastic effects illegal immigration has on the overall economy. Making those intangable thefts visible should be the focus here. Compation has its place, but it is not to replace the rule of law.

We also can site the simple economic laws of supply and demand with those already here. The economic downturn has already shown us that people here illegally will go home if the reward in not greater than the risk (I.E. no jobs versus the risk of being caught here illegally). This is where the argument of holding companies big or small accountable with existing laws and possibly new laws will dictate that if the supply of jobs for illegals dries up than the big reward, jobs, adds significantly higher to the risk side. The same holds true for illegals being able to qualify for social benefits. We cannot have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for all our countries laws and services or we will find our soverenty in great peril.

sean higgins said:

Today we face the consequences of having it too easy. Now Greed is revered. Ceo's in the 70's earned 10 times as much as the average worker; now it's 50 times as much. Donald Trump is America's hero, with his ridiculous hair and despicable attitude-he is actually a charicature, but still a hero. And when it catches up to us, as it has with this downturn (call it what it is-the Second Depression), we don't gird our loins, we look for bailouts(which remains superior to riots and breadlines).In many ways America needs this wake-up call. And the scary part is that the wake-up call is still in the process of occurring.
As a result, arguments that The Greatest Generation would have laughed at are viewed with favor. After all it is nicer to be nice when you can- your mother certainly taught you that more can be gained with sugar than lemons. Unfortunately, sometimes you need to make lemonaid.
In the end, the PTA holds sway. The same crowd that banned the Three Stooges here in Boston in the 70's ( Cleveland was the only other city in America that did so) now argues for niceness. That is the essence of the pro-illegal-immigrant argument. It's not nice to separate families, to build fences(what ever happened to fences making good neighbors) etc.

[Wayne Lestan]

Sean and others:

All I ask is that our representatives on every level do what they took an oath to do. Enforce the laws!

Immigration laws are one very important thing that is being ignored but how about the one-year prison term for committing a crime with a gun? To the best of my knowledge it has never been enforced. Why? You hear enough complaints against gun owning. Why go after the legal gun owners and let the illegal (there's that word again) gun users, who are actually committing crimes, avoid the law?

I don’t understand. One would think ignoring the laws you swore to defend would be a crime. If it is they are ignoring that law also.

[Kenneth Carter]

Wayne you are spot on! How can public officials simply decide to ignore this law or that one? One can attempt to change a law one does not agree with but if you are hired to uphold the law you must uphold all laws, even the ones you don't agree with.

Wayne Lestan said:

Sean and others:

All I ask is that our representatives on every level do what they took an oath to do. Enforce the laws!

Immigration laws are one very important thing that is being ignored but how about the one-year prison term for committing a crime with a gun? To the best of my knowledge it has never been enforced. Why? You hear enough complaints against gun owning. Why go after the legal gun owners and let the illegal (there's that word again) gun users, who are actually committing crimes, avoid the law?

I don’t understand. One would think ignoring the laws you swore to defend would be a crime. If it is they are ignoring that law also.

[sean higgins]

Wayne Lestan said:

Illegal immigration is just that, illegal. I am seriously concerned about the way our elected officials pick and choose the laws they want to enforce.

As a practical matter, just enforcing legal worker laws and requiring a picture ID for welfare including healthcare would go a long way to limiting illegal immigration.

Congress needs to look at the policy of granting citizenship to all people born on our soil. What purpose is it serving in this day and age? What purpose did it ever serve? I don't believe it serves the US citizens at all.

[sean higgins]

Wayne Lestan said:

Sean and others:

All I ask is that our representatives on every level do what they took an oath to do. Enforce the laws!

Immigration laws are one very important thing that is being ignored but how about the one-year prison term for committing a crime with a gun? To the best of my knowledge it has never been enforced. Why? You hear enough complaints against gun owning. Why go after the legal gun owners and let the illegal (there's that word again) gun users, who are actually committing crimes, avoid the law?

I don’t understand. One would think ignoring the laws you swore to defend would be a crime. If it is they are ignoring that law also.

[sean higgins]

As a lawyer i have seen the gun law applied mercilessly, although selectively. It has been used to clean the streets of criminals; it has also been used to harass gun owners( there's a famous case if a gun collector having to take a guilty verdict and appeal to keep himself out of jail). today it is selectively applied, on a case by case basis, by law
enforcement.
The INS laws are also selectively enforced;eg the Fall River raid, which was a PR disaster for law enforcement, although the first reaction I had was -Good they are at least trying; the second thought was there is going to be hell to pay with the PTA.(it's always those second thoughts that ruin the mood).
The selective gun law enforcement is sensible-there are too many valid exceptions to the spirit of the law.The selective enforcement of the INS laws, the patchy enforcement caused by resistant states, is pure politics, and fear of negative publicity. There is nothing like babies crying for their detained mothers to bring a tear to the eye.hence the problem

[sean higgins]

Kenneth Carter said:

Wayne you are spot on! How can public officials simply decide to ignore this law or that one? One can attempt to change a law one does not agree with but if you are hired to uphold the law you must uphold all laws, even the ones you don't agree with.

Wayne Lestan said:

Sean and others:

All I ask is that our representatives on every level do what they took an oath to do. Enforce the laws!

Immigration laws are one very important thing that is being ignored but how about the one-year prison term for committing a crime with a gun? To the best of my knowledge it has never been enforced. Why? You hear enough complaints against gun owning. Why go after the legal gun owners and let the illegal (there's that word again) gun users, who are actually committing crimes, avoid the law?

I don’t understand. One would think ignoring the laws you swore to defend would be a crime. If it is they are ignoring that law also.