Republicans for Impeaching President Bush

User Forum Topic
Submitted by jg on May 17, 2007 - 9:09pm

As I understand, under the proposed 'immigration reform' bill, illegal aliens would be able to apply for a visa (Z-1) that would give them legal status in the U.S. and allow them to apply for visas for their parents, spouse, and children. All of a sudden, our 12-24 million illegal aliens have legal status, and have the right to bring their immediate family to the U.S. Just what we need as we stand on the precipice of a recession.

This evening, I wrote 'No to Amnesty' e-mails to the five Republican Senators -- McCain, Kyl, Specter, Graham, and Martinez -- who support this bill; to President Bush; and to the Chairman of the Republican Party of San Diego.

I am bitterly, bitterly disappointed in President Bush and select elements of the Republican Party.

If President Bush signs a de facto amnesty bill into law, someone please draft and circulate a "Republicans for Impeaching President Bush" petition. I promise I would work hard to get many signatures on it.

Submitted by Coronita on May 17, 2007 - 9:54pm.

At least they would pay taxes now :(.

Besides, if they aren't going to pick the strawberries you eat, who will? You wanna pay $10/lb for strawberries when farmers hire unionized ex-UAW to pick the fields??????

Getting rid of welfare for those who haven't contributed to the system in the past say 5 years. That would work.

But seriously, do you really expect this to pass????? Nothing is going to get done until election. This is the best time for the financial markets imho. The only gripe i had was that the republicans had 1 shot at getting rid of the estate tax. And they blew it. Now I have to figure out other ways to shelter what I earn away from all the welfare/taxes/subsidies/credit drenched/financially irresponsible american that always scream bailout when they f* up their own finances.

Submitted by drunkle on May 17, 2007 - 11:58pm.

your fat lazy stupid smug kid doesnt deserve anything that you worked for except what clothes and education you can provide him during your lifetime.

republicans are not the only ones who want cheap labor.

Submitted by CostaMesa on May 18, 2007 - 12:53am.

What is more likely to affect a larger number of Piggingtonians - estate tax reform or tort reform.

I'd posit that Bush's biggest blunder is abandoning the cause of tort reform. If ANYTHING would help turn this country away from it's entrenched nanny-state ways - keeping the lawyer's filthy mitts off our cash would be a great place to start.

How many of us pay too much for medical care, car insurance and other necessities? How many will be in the position of needing to be concerned with estate tax? I think the second number is dramatically smaller - but it does seem to have the effect of making a lot of people feel a lot more important when they bitch about it.

Submitted by meadandale on May 18, 2007 - 7:01am.

>At least they would pay taxes now :(.

Even that is debateable. However, no amount of taxes they start paying now is going to recoup the costs to the government for the SS and Medicare that they will be sucking from the system in 20 years. That's right, they would immediately qualify for benefits (per what I heard discussed last night).

>Besides, if they aren't going to pick the strawberries you >eat, who will? You wanna pay $10/lb for strawberries when >farmers hire unionized ex-UAW to pick the fields??????

This is a tired argument. Say strawberries cost $2/lb now and we are paying the (illegal) workers $7/hr to pick them and say that wages are the highest portion of the cost of those strawberries. If you doubled the wage to $14 I bet you'd find quite a few people who were willing to take that job at it's significant premium above minimum wage, even if it was for short term seasonal work. Your $2/lb strawberries are now $4/lb (a 2x increase, not a 5x increase).

Submitted by Coronita on May 18, 2007 - 7:15am.

your fat lazy stupid smug kid doesnt deserve anything that you worked for except what clothes and education you can provide him during your lifetime. republicans are not the only ones who want cheap labor.

 

The way I look at it. Better giving it to my "fat, lazy, stupid kid" than

your or other people's fat lazy stupid kid that will knee deep in debt. Or worse....Fat lazy stupid people that got knee deep in debt because they wanted to drive around BMW's when they should have been planning for THEIR future. I give enough subsidies to everyone else in terms of paying taxes. I've done my part in terms of socialization. If the government wants to waste money on my tax dollars and/or if individuals are stupid and going to buy that BMW instead of of saving for their future retirement because they are counting on social security, that's really not my problem.

By the time I retire, I estimate 2/3 of americans will be living off of subsidies, while the remaining 1/3 of us will be paying up our noses for the rest of you. And that probably would be a conservative estimate.

 

 

Submitted by Coronita on May 18, 2007 - 7:30am.

What is more likely to affect a larger number of Piggingtonians - estate tax reform or tort reform. I'd posit that Bush's biggest blunder is abandoning the cause of tort reform. If ANYTHING would help turn this country away from it's entrenched nanny-state ways - keeping the lawyer's filthy mitts off our cash would be a great place to start. How many of us pay too much for medical care, car insurance and other necessities? How many will be in the position of needing to be concerned with estate tax? I think the second number is dramatically smaller - but it does seem to have the effect of making a lot of people feel a lot more important when they bitch about it.

 

The way I see it. A lot of people are paying way to much in terms of cost because they choose to do it. They choose to drive big SUVs. They choose spend $100/month on cable, another, $100/month on a cell phone, choose drive expensive cars, and hence choose to pay a lot of car insurance. How is this everyone elses problems???????

 

There's no doubt Health care is wacked. The first thing would be to stop giving it away imho. But I believe some things like health care need some part of socialization. But the only problem is, no one has figured out how to pay for it. No one wants to pay for higher taxes, for those who can afford to pay taxes (I don't mind personally if taxes rise slightly as long as everyone bears some amount if it). And as far as cutting benefits, I see the health care issue many for hourly workers. Sorry ,but my advise is get out of that job. Go get yourself a decent education, with a decent career or self/business so you aren't so dependent on crappy hourly pay/with crappy healh care. If you truely have done all that, and then still need financial assistance, apply for welfare at that point..I would be happy that my tax dollars would subsidize those people who have really tried but couldn't make it..

 

The only irony to this immigrant bill which is pretty funny is that all those H1-B holders who work at tech companies are probably going to have to wait longer to get their green card than illegal immigrants...That's pretty pathetic.

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 18, 2007 - 8:00am.

'immigration reform' bill, illegal aliens would be able to apply for a visa (Z-1) that would give them legal status in the U.S.

Read the fine print, it requires them to return home and may take 8-13 years. I don't want to go home

This is a lip service package so both side can say they did something. The Dems, we got them a path to citizen ship. The Repubs, they got to go home.

In the end it is a DOA solution, as basically all of the illegals in the article said, they aren't going to do it, and most importantly, they definitely aren't going home of their own accord.

Submitted by MANmom on May 18, 2007 - 8:08am.

MANmom

Don't forget that once they have legal status here whether it be a green card or visa, do you think they will go back to picking strawberries or anything else? No, forget picking crops, now they can work anywhere else, and we will be back to having to find ag workers again...perpetual cycle, we need guest workers, no anchor babies and tough enforcement of the laws we have...put the employers in jail. I am also contacting my senators...I suggest you do the same.

Submitted by meadandale on May 18, 2007 - 8:47am.

I love how the article states that the guy sends home $300/month ($3600/yr) but then states "where would I get $5000?".

Another guy says he paid a border smuggler almost two grand to get across the border?

AFAIK, the $5000 can be repaid over 8 years. If you can't afford it, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way back across the border.

These people are just selfish. They will pay to get across the border but now that they are here, they don't see any point in having to pay TO STAY.

I say we start fueling up the busses and sending these folks home. In the long run, it will cost less than the drain on the treasury from their retirement and healthcare costs.

Submitted by blahblahblah on May 18, 2007 - 9:15am.

The US could stop illegal immigration tomorrow if it wanted to. We went to the moon, don't tell me we can't build a fence stretching from TJ to Matamoros. But we won't stop it because the business interests that control this country don't want it stopped. They are addicted to cheap labor; illegals don't usually organize and they're usually (not always though) afraid to go to the authorities to complain about unsafe work conditions, unpaid overtime, or on-the-job injuries for fear of being sent home.

The political parties trot out "solutions" every few years to make you think they're doing something -- tough new border controls and partial fences to please the anti-immigrant crowd (and put dollars in the DHS coffers), and amnesty and visa ploys to please the pro-immigrant crowd. But in the end nothing changes.

The Republicans are particulary disingenous about this, and are the masters of playing to both sides. They get Sensebrenner (from Wisconsin, not a lot of Rodriguez's in the phonebooks there) to talk tough about building new fences or hiring more DHS officers while at the same time Dubya (Texas) and Dubya's Bubba Jeb (Florida) are speaking Spanish and talking about guestworker programs and amnesty. So everyone thinks that the Republicans have the right answer, because they have every answer!

Of course, the blame for the explosive growth in illegal immigration rests with Clinton and the NAFTA crew -- NAFTA put all of those Mexican farmworkers out of work almost overnight as Mexico was flooded with cheap agricultural products from giant US factory farms. They went from the 1920s to the 1990s overnight and, like the Okie sharecroppers forced off of their land in the depression, they made their way anywhere they could find work. It's the biggest Northbound migration since the 1910 Mexican revolution, when almost a million Mexicans came to the US at a time when our population was only 90M.

We are all doomed.

Submitted by PerryChase on May 18, 2007 - 9:17am.

As much as I hate to say it, I support Bush on the immigration bill. It's the right thing to do and it'll enrich and grow our country.

I think that the deal will happen because:

1) Business interests support it. They need workers. Bush' polls are so low now that it won't make a difference if the signs the bill. Bush spent all his political capital in Iraq. He's needs to finally payoff the business wing of the party.

2) Liberal Democrats (the intellectual wing) support it. So they need to pass it during a Republican administration to avoid the wrath of the labor unions.

Yes, this deal won't end illegal immigration and might attract others. But America is big enough; and a growing dynamic society and economy is what keeps us ahead of the world.

Think about it, without population growth, Real Estate will not go up. Are we ready to face a declining population with declining asset values? I think not.

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 18, 2007 - 9:20am.

don't tell me we can't build a fence stretching from TJ

We don't need a fence. We just need to enforce the work laws. Crack down on the employers and they'll stop hiring.

Submitted by blahblahblah on May 18, 2007 - 9:34am.

We don't need a fence. We just need to enforce the work laws. Crack down on the employers and they'll stop hiring.

My friends in DHS say it's not gonna happen without a fence, but of course maybe they just want more $$$ to build it :-) Anyway, here's a little inside scoop -- most of these illegals have documents, social security numbers, driver's licenses, etc... Once you have the SS # it all follows from there. Employers check these numbers against a federal database which apparently isn't very accurate.

Anyway, DHS has collected a list of around a million fraudulent SS #s that illegals are using; they presented this list to the SSA and IRS a couple of years back to get these numbers off of the good list; that way if anyone tries to use them they'll be caught. Guess what the IRS/SSA said? NO, we can't take these numbers off of our list because WE NEED THE TAX REVENUE. That's right, your own IRS is complicit in this scam. That is straight from a DHS officer so I'm sure it's true.

You are right that a fence won't be necessary, but we will need a national ID card like every other country has. Either solution would be allright with me...

Submitted by NotCranky on May 18, 2007 - 9:57am.

It's not a scam Concho...It's Capitalism!
We can't have Homeland security messing with it so let them build a fence that will keep em busy!Of course they will have to leave holes in or the deal is off!

Submitted by deadzone on May 18, 2007 - 11:38am.

The only solution is a national ID system in combination with real government enforecement on employers.

The fence doesn't solve anything. If employers can no longer hire illegals, the problem goes away naturally through attrition.

Submitted by Ash Housewares on May 18, 2007 - 12:59pm.

The fence is an opportunity for politicos to get a good photo op, nothing more. Do you really think that people desperate enough to risk death crossing miles and miles of desert are going to be turned back by a fence? Hell no. They'll be constantly digging under it, tearing it down, etc. It's just there as a political statement. You have to crack down on the employers offering them jobs.

Submitted by NotCranky on May 18, 2007 - 1:15pm.

"You have to crack down on the employers offering them jobs."
More of us will have to want those jobs first for ourselves or our kids to put a counter pressure to the business and immigrant lobbies. That won't happen unless there is a depression but the politicians know many voters are nervous enough about the economy/jobs to be moved by the discusson.So its all talk as other's have said.
I am not a racist or protectionist from any angle just observations. Its all just so very primal to me.

Submitted by PerryChase on May 18, 2007 - 1:17pm.

Do any of you who are complaining bitterly against Mexican illegals, ever hire day-laborers, gardeners or maids? If you do, make sure you check their IDs and pay the social security taxes. How about the contractors you hire to build your patio or your pool?

Do you think that people who live in 3000-6000sf Mc Mansions don't ever hire illegals to maintain their houses? Real estate drove illegal immigration and a lot of people benefited.

Follow any upper middle class family home and on errands and you'll see that most of them employ illegals for one thing or another. I know a couple who live in a 6000sf Mc Mansion with a live-in Mexican maid who is without documents. I practiced my Spanish and she told me her story :). Well that couple are Rush Limbaugh Republicans!! But they make exceptions for themselves -- just like their hero.

Submitted by NotCranky on May 18, 2007 - 1:42pm.

Yo te intiendo muy bien Perry. Esta gente es muy egoista y hipocrata!
If we had half the charm of the basically decent humble(not stupid) mexican person and they had half the opportunity that the basic selfish self serving american had we would be equals. These people simply come from a place where there is pratically an institutionalized lack of opportunity for so many, even if they are as educated as we are.

Submitted by jg on May 18, 2007 - 1:34pm.

I agree with nsr and dz that once we dry up the demand -- by enforcing existing laws with employers -- that supply will dry up, too (border crossings will drop and illegals will go home, assuming that politicians get the spine to kick 'em off welfare).

I think that we may need a fence, though, too, as there are folks -- terrorists -- who want to get in here, bring bad things in, and kill us.

Perry, we Republicans will worry about our own -- illegal-hiring McMansion owners -- as you clean up your side of the house -- purported 'greens' spewing tons of junk from their Citations as they fly to their next conference in Colorado or Sante Fe.

Submitted by blahblahblah on May 18, 2007 - 2:08pm.

Do you really think that people desperate enough to risk death crossing miles and miles of desert are going to be turned back by a fence? Hell no.

The reason they have to risk death crossing miles and miles of desert is that they are forced to go around the fence of death that Clinton built during Operation Gatekeeper. Building partial fences is just making the coyotes rich and killing poor, desperate people. There are two solutions -- tear down the fences entirely and allow free movement of people or build and monitor a complete fence stretching from the Gulf to the Pacific. Either solution will probably cost us taxpayers the same amount.

The real issue is corporate control of the US. The reason there are so many desperate illegals willing to do anything to get here is that big ag pushed NAFTA through in order to open up the Mexican market. The campesinos down there were left with no choice and most of us would do the same if we were in their shoes.

We're all doomed!

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 18, 2007 - 2:17pm.

Sorry Rustico, I don't buy the noble laborer sentiment. Although I will buy that the illegal aliens are exploited buy the few for profit at the expense of the many that think they're getting a cheaper product.

The true costs of the illegal labor gets borne by the consumer not in paying more for a head lettuce, construction or other work that is being done, but instead, a lack of entrepeneurial innovation, in inadequate funding for the schools, subpar education, unfunded hospitals and a collapse of emergency care services, and a ghettotizing of neighborhoods tolerating a two class system replicating the graft and corruption that most are fleeing in coming here.

It has been done before, in the middle ages, before the plague, society stagnanted becuase it was cheaper to use abundant cheap feudal labor than improve things. Things like the printing press didn't get evented until after that plague made it too costly to have dozens of monks sitting around copying manuscripts by hand.

Immigration is good for the country. Illegal immigration is incredibly bad. Create a guest worker program for low skilled laborers where they come, make a reasonable amount money, pay taxes, have required insurance, a fees for the infrastructure use and go home. Much like Singapore. For highly skilled laborers, increase and expedite the immigration process.

Submitted by NotCranky on May 18, 2007 - 2:53pm.

I like your post "no such" I will read it again. I didn't understand the "Humble laborer" area of it. I was simply trying to show that mexicans(our primary source of immigrant labor) are every bit as human as we are because there is some attitude in this thread that expresses other sentiments.

I have a problem with the illegal aspect of it too. Take pride ,racism and fear out of it though and the moral dimension of crossing Illegally to work where you truly are wanted and needed, is tiny compared to the moral infractions permeating our system in countless ways. The real injustice is wanting to chew them up and spit them out a vililfy them and make a political issue out of it every time the economy tanks. Some of your examples of how to make adjustments would clearly clean the issue up some if they are possible to implement? Seems like our country has adopted the half ass measures approach to everything.

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 18, 2007 - 3:00pm.

Well, Spanish is my third langauge. And while I've been in SoCal a while, I'm still limited to banos, cervesas, food and ?es en fuego sola? It's bad Spanish, but they usually figure out what I mean.

Maybe I didn't read intiendo right, I fudged, don't know that word and couldn't find a xlate on it.

What you say, makes sense on rereading with your clarification.

Submitted by NotCranky on May 18, 2007 - 3:09pm.

Thanks for taking the time to reread.

Submitted by blahblahblah on May 18, 2007 - 3:24pm.

Maybe I didn't read intiendo right, I fudged, don't know that word and couldn't find a xlate on it.

It's a misspelled first-person conjugation of "entender" (to understand). The correct spelling is "entiendo".

Submitted by drunkle on May 18, 2007 - 4:11pm.

the we dont need another stinking paris hilton taxes: the rockefellers and morgans are still going strong even after surviving decades of stiff inheritance taxation. elimination of the tax would only amount to a paris hilton entitlement and acceleration of corporate consolidation and control of america.

tort reform: just like inflation, tort reform is a con. medical expenses, insurance costs going up because of "frivolous" lawsuits? no, it's because those lawsuits that are justified and right don't and can't go far enough: merck killing people with unsafe drugs is only fined a few bucks. they immediately turn those costs over on future business. rather than... merck getting sued into non-operation and the persons responsible being barred from working in the industry, thereby allowing competition from new and small independants.

illegal immigration: with a wave of the illegal immigration flag, nationalism and racism are immediately stirred, overwhelming the insect-like attention spans of the american people. immigrant employees, legal or illegal are only a problem now because of all the years of union busting and anti-labor policies.

Submitted by NotCranky on May 18, 2007 - 4:38pm.

At least I intended the first person! Actually I don't write in spanish too often.I am pretty fluent. It does surprise me that I stored that one in they grey matter incorrectly. I bet I got away with it in school!
Thanks for the correction Concho
Que pase buen Dia!

Submitted by blahblahblah on May 18, 2007 - 4:58pm.

The "death tax" is too funny, the Republican spinmasters named it that so that Alabama Joe Sixpack would think it's an awful idea and that it needs to go. Little does Alabama Joe Sixpack know that unless he's got $2M in assets his estate won't be taxed a penny when he dies. (Alabama Joe Sixpack doesn't know how to use "the internets" or "the google" to look up the info on the IRS website, so he lets Fox News tell him everything he needs to know). As for those family businesses, they can definitely be stung by it but a good estate plan can help minimize the effects.

How many people in the US even die with a $2M estate? It is so funny that people will vote to get rid of it when all they've got is $50K in their 401K. And of course some of the world's richest men are big supporters of the estate tax.

We're all doomed!

Submitted by Coronita on May 18, 2007 - 9:19pm.

The "death tax" is too funny, the Republican spinmasters named it that so that Alabama Joe Sixpack would think it's an awful idea and that it needs to go. Little does Alabama Joe Sixpack know that unless he's got $2M in assets his estate won't be taxed a penny when he dies. (Alabama Joe Sixpack doesn't know how to use "the internets" or "the google" to look up the info on the IRS website, so he lets Fox News tell him everything he needs to know). As for those family businesses, they can definitely be stung by it but a good estate plan can help minimize the effects. How many people in the US even die with a $2M estate? It is so funny that people will vote to get rid of it when all they've got is $50K in their 401K. And of course some of the world's richest men are big supporters of the estate tax.

 

I disagree, especially if you live in california.

Take your SFH. That itself for is $1million (ok maybe $700k after the decline). Then figure if you're smart you have a $500k life insurance policy for you and another for your spouse. That's $2million. right there. Add in your 401k over your lifetime and your wife's lifetime, how hard is it to really exceed this amount before you are 60? Also, $2million in tomorrow's dollar will be worthless..more like $200k in today's dollars. A lot of you "average" joe's aren't really that below average.The really rich always have loopholes, so this death tax doesn't really matter to them. Yeah, sure you can setup the entire A and B trust thing to get around the $2.5 million. But let's face it, $1million isn't really a lot of money these days. 

The other way I look at it, for those that think th inheritance is "unfair".  Your kids don't deserve an inheritance any less than any of you that were "lucky" to be born with a U.S. citizenship. So I find it hypocritical that the same folks that think an estate inheritance is unfair but at the same time want to crack down on immigrants. If your heirs are really that stupid and lose everything you give to them, that's their stupidity. But I earned this money. I already paid taxes on this money. And I'll be damned if te government tells me what I can do with it upon my death.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.