• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus

ArpeggioAngel said:
Why do they have to go to court? They are not citizens of this country. That is the whole point. They are here ILLEGALLY. Breaking the law by coming in to this country by other than LEGAL means. That translates into being deported back to your own country - no court required....
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!


I have been repeating myself that illegals are not criminals because I am using the legal definition of the word, while most people are using the English definition (as found in any dictionary).
Yes, since they broke a law they are criminals, and no, since they were never convicted by a criminal judge, they are not criminals.
Click to expand...
coming across the border without proper documentation is illegal by law of the United States. And if you are not properly documented and are not a citizen, you do not have the right to a trial. Therefor, a trial would have no meaning, since they have no right to one. And going by that, they can be labeled a criminal even if they have not undergone a trial! Hence, the only answer would be immediate deportation without trial!

You know what that means? Either the "over qualified" people are asking for too much money or doing a bad job putting a resume together, or the employers don't need that much qualifications indeed.
Click to expand...

If the over qualified people are willing to work minimum wage jobs for the salary of an under-qualified person, wouldn't the employer want those people on the job because they could get more "bang for their buck?"

Take the immigration raid that happened in Arizona. 300 illegal workers were busted. In a week, those positions were filled by hard working american citizens. The bull about americans not being willing to perform those low income jobs was proven incorrect. we do NOT need illegals in the job force to do our low income jobs. Therefor, it would be BAD for the economy if they didn't get the jobs. It would be an economic boost if we got rid of all of the illegal workers in the job force, because it would bring unemployment down under 10%.

I leave in saying this. Until an illegal alein has effected your lifestyle you will not know what impacts you. I have had this happen as stated in my very 1st post. The illegal immigration law in place are not enough to keep scores of people to bust across the border. Illegal immigrants do take jobs. They are only trying to live. A lot of this money is sent to there families to try to get them here as well. I have nothing against any person working hard. I do have a problem with how it is being done. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law. They come here "illegally" hence the term. The punishment for being caught is deportation. If AZ and other states adopt the Federal law and inforce it then so be it. I hope they round them all up and send them back to where they are from. Until legislator change this is the way it is. LOVE it, or LEAVE it.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
I finally had time to read the whole link and the pdf
Here is the thing that is not proof that you are right. The article clearly states that this is an estimate. Nothing in the report is guaranteed and it seems clear by reading the article, and the report that this is clearly just an estimate based on a single model. That is far from any kind proof. Especially when you consider that The Center for American Progress. I would really love some honest to goodness proof, but some estimates based on some computer model that may or may not be accurate and that is put out by a partisan think tank is just not going to cut it with me as proof.
 
Dinah said:
I finally had time to read the whole link and the pdf
Here is the thing that is not proof that you are right. The article clearly states that this is an estimate. Nothing in the report is guaranteed and it seems clear by reading the article, and the report that this is clearly just an estimate based on a single model. That is far from any kind proof. Especially when you consider that The Center for American Progress. I would really love some honest to goodness proof, but some estimates based on some computer model that may or may not be accurate and that is put out by a partisan think tank is just not going to cut it with me as proof.
Click to expand...

So are you saying you trust your gut instincts more than a computer model that may or may not be accurate?
 
No I am saying that the computer models information may or may not be right, it just depends on how the model was programed and what it was based on and about a million other things. Look my husband works IT and does computer programming a computer model is just an elaborately formulated estimate based on what people think will happen with some math thrown in to make people think you know what you are talking about.

I was just pointing out that this is an estimate put out by an organization with a clear bias, and that it is not actually any sort of proof as it had been claimed to be.
 
Dinah said:
No I am saying that the computer models information may or may not be right, it just depends on how the model was programed and what it was based on and about a million other things. Look my husband works IT and does computer programming a computer model is just an elaborately formulated estimate based on what people think will happen with some math thrown in to make people think you know what you are talking about.

I was just pointing out that this is an estimate put out by an organization with a clear bias, and that it is not actually any sort of proof as it had been claimed to be.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is the best I can do. The report was put together by a UCLA professor in association with an educational institute and an organization both claiming to be nonpartisan. Unless you show me something equivalent or better supporting your view on the issue, there is nothing else I have to say. :shrugs:
 
Jp I am not hoping or trying to change your mind. You are welcome to read estimates and models and then think of them as facts if you'd like, that is your call to make.

I am just pointing out that an estimate based on a computer model put out by a progressive organization is not the same things as proof. It is information about one possible outcome based on one computer model and nothing more than that.

They use computer models to predict hurricanes and things. The weather service has between 8 and 20 models they use routinely depending your weather source. They have been keeping forecasting data for a really long time now, and the models are still never accurate 100% and sometimes even the really good models that usually get close will still be WAY off. So as someone who has been told about what a computer model predicts, only to have hurricanes come to shore faster, stronger, and in different places. I'm sure you'll excuse me when I say a computer model is a lot of things but proof is not one of them.
 
Dinah said:
Jp I am not hoping or trying to change your mind. You are welcome to read estimates and models and then think of them as facts if you'd like, that is your call to make.

I am just pointing out that an estimate based on a computer model put out by a progressive organization is not the same things as proof. It is information about one possible outcome based on one computer model and nothing more than that.

They use computer models to predict hurricanes and things. The weather service has between 8 and 20 models they use routinely depending your weather source. They have been keeping forecasting data for a really long time now, and the models are still never accurate 100% and sometimes even the really good models that usually get close will still be WAY off. So as someone who has been told about what a computer model predicts, only to have hurricanes come to shore faster, stronger, and in different places. I'm sure you'll excuse me when I say a computer model is a lot of things but proof is not one of them.
Click to expand...

What have we been doing then? I am hoping and trying to change people's minds by presenting my points of view. I don't expect to change everyone's because that is unrealistic, but if I can change at least one I am pretty happy about it. That's why I like debates like this, as you probably could already tell.

What I asked on my previous post was for you to provide some kind of report put out by conservative organizations. I believe you don't have that. How are you, then, convinced that mass deportation would improve the unemployment rate hence making it easier for people that, like you, are having/had a very hard time finding a job that supposedly is being occupied by an illegal immigrant? Is that a conclusion you reached on your own? Popular belief amongst people in your area?... :shrugs:

As for hurricane prediction models, you are right, they are not 100% accurate, but they get pretty darn close and that's probably why they keep being used year after year. Perhaps you should think about the report I presented as a pretty darn close prediction of what could happen if a comprehensive immigration reform happened. :sidestep:
 
Why would I care what a conservative organization has to say about immigration. They are just as equally biased as a progressive organization, both organizations have their very own agendas and their very own reasons for doing things, and typically speaking rarely are any of their reasons because it is actually good for us American's. I was not ever trying to convince you to be on my side of the issue, and unless you have some actual proof and not some estimate of what happen I doubt very seriously that you are going to convince me. I came to my feelings about immigration not because I am a republican and not because I am a democrat because I am neither of those.

I came to my opinions about immigration because of how many immigrants I know. Myyhusbands company is owned and run by legal immigrants and they are wonderful assets to our country and to our economy. When I worked as an accountant I worked with a Lady from India who held 5 different bachelors degrees and could speak and write in 8 different languages, her family also came here legally. People in my family have fallen in love with a married people from other countries and those people immigrated here again legally.

Even if your estimate was a fact and getting rid of the illegals is bad for the economy, I still contend that it is the right thing to do, because by allowing illegals to stay it cheapens the hard work that those who came here legally had to do. People who come here legally and respect our laws are welcome by me! I understand that immigrating here legally isn't easy in all circumstances, I am for reform so that people can get here legally, I am just not ever in my life going to be supportive or sympathetic to law breakers.
 
Dinah said:
Why would I care what a conservative organization has to say about immigration. They are just as equally biased as a progressive organization, both organizations have their very own agendas and their very own reasons for doing things, and typically speaking rarely are any of their reasons because it is actually good for us American's. I was not ever trying to convince you to be on my side of the issue, and unless you have some actual proof and not some estimate of what happen I doubt very seriously that you are going to convince me. I came to my feelings about immigration not because I am a republican and not because I am a democrat because I am neither of those.

I came to my opinions about immigration because of how many immigrants I know. Myyhusbands company is owned and run by legal immigrants and they are wonderful assets to our country and to our economy. When I worked as an accountant I worked with a Lady from India who held 5 different bachelors degrees and could speak and write in 8 different languages, her family also came here legally. People in my family have fallen in love with a married people from other countries and those people immigrated here again legally.

Even if your estimate was a fact and getting rid of the illegals is bad for the economy, I still contend that it is the right thing to do, because by allowing illegals to stay it cheapens the hard work that those who came here legally had to do. People who come here legally and respect our laws are welcome by me! I understand that immigrating here legally isn't easy in all circumstances, I am for reform so that people can get here legally, I am just not ever in my life going to be supportive or sympathetic to law breakers.
Click to expand...

But see, you would put the country's economy in jeopardy simply because you CHOOSE to be non-supportive and unsympathetic to law breakers. They aren't asking for pardon (amnesty). They are asking to be allowed to pay for their "crimes" (fines, taxes, etc.) and yet be allowed to improve this country's economy (no deportation).

EVERYONE broke laws before so don't be so harsh on EVERYONE.
 
If the over qualified people are willing to work minimum wage jobs for the salary of an under-qualified person, wouldn't the employer want those people on the job because they could get more "bang for their buck?"

You would think that sounds logical, but many times the answer is no. That is because employers know that the over qualified individual is probably looking for a temporary job to tide them over until something better comes along. Employers don't want to invest time and money into training and getting new employees integrated into their business if they are likely to leave as soon as they are able to. So most employers want an employee who is most likely to stay, and who is most likely to be qualified for the job, but who won't find the job either too easy (boring) or too difficult (and thus may be incompetent).

Of course, applicants can lie and leave off some of their qualifications, and I know people who have done exactly that. But depending on your last job or two, that may not be possible without leaving a mysterious gap in your job history.
 
jpccusa said:
But see, you would put the country's economy in jeopardy simply because you CHOOSE to be non-supportive and unsympathetic to law breakers. They aren't asking for pardon (amnesty). They are asking to be allowed to pay for their "crimes" (fines, taxes, etc.) and yet be allowed to improve this country's economy (no deportation).

EVERYONE broke laws before so don't be so harsh on EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

There is no proof that I would be putting our country into any danger. Just because some liberals are hoping to get more minority votes at election time by appearing sympathetic that does not mean that based on one estimate we can all just know that the economy will be in grave peril.

I know lots of people who would never EVER knowingly break a law. So no not everybody disregards and breaks laws. When you choose your behavior you choose your consequences. If you choose to come to a country illegally, then you choose to accept the risks and one of those risks are that if found you will be deported. If you choose to smoke crack, then you choose to accept the consequences that you might end up in prison if you get caught.
 
Cornsnake124 said:
If the over qualified people are willing to work minimum wage jobs for the salary of an under-qualified person, wouldn't the employer want those people on the job because they could get more "bang for their buck?"
Click to expand...

I just wanted to say, from a business standpoint (I used to be involved in hiring here where I work for both inspection and engineering) that there is definitely such a thing as 'over qualified'. We, as an organization, tend to avoid hiring people who are over qualified for a job because we know that they would ultimately be 'temporary', meaning that they would leave for a better job opportunity as soon as it surfaced and, because they are qualified for it, that person is easily applicable for that new job and they are gone. Because of 'over qualified' people that we have hired here, we've lost an extremely large number of engineers to other higher paying jobs that they are qualified for and have essentially fallen almost a years behind in our amount of work because it takes almost 2 years to train up an engineer to accurately perform their job here. Coming from the standpoint of a small business owner, you are going to want someone who does not have an overly qualified education nor are you going to want someone with extremely high aspirations in life- ultimately, you are going to want someone who you know is going to be reliable, happy with the minimum pay and has a chance of sticking around for a few years at least.

Dinah, I fully agree that American jobs should go to American citizens. Any jobs. This is America, not an extension of Mexico. Point blank, we should take care of our own people first. That is logical, why should Americans that want those jobs take a back seat to illegals from another country. This discussion has been going around in circles and from my standpoint, JP, you have been acting like a defense attorney, redefining definitions to something illogical and quoting minimal one sided sources to attempt to prove a point that you've said for the last 35 pages that, to me, makes little to no sense. I do not see many people agreeing with you and maybe that is because these people arguing against you have actually witnessed or been party to how these illegals affect their lives, or the lives of their friends and family. Maybe take some time out and attempt to sit back in their shoes and see how frustrating it is to not have jobs available to support your family in this current economy, and remember, unemployment only lasts 6 months.

It isn't just the job opportunities and the economic impact that illegals have on our Country, it is also crime rate and culture that comes with these illegals.
I personally have had crime committed against me BY illegals- my parents have 34 acres with salal (a broad leafed plant that only grows here) around their house, up here in the Pacific Northwest illegals pick salal for an under-the-counter job for the floral industry. To pick the salal, obviously they have to invade people's private property. My family woke up and found their house surrounded by a large group of Mexicans picking (my family's) plants to sell, this wouldn't be such a bad thing except they have no hygiene or cleanliness standards, they crap either in the bushes or on the lawns and they eat their lunches that they bring and throw the garbage (pop cans, tin foil and plastic wrap) ALL OVER THE PLACE. They leave piles of garbage all over my parent's property. Not to mention that this is disgusting for my parents BUT my parents have a large range of children and grandchildren from a range of 2 years old to 18 years old and this completely unacceptable for these kids to be around when they go outside to play. One time my dad (who is a police officer) had to nearly forcefully remove them from the property and told them that if they returned they would be sent to jail for trespassing. In retaliation the brush pickers came back in middle of the night and slashed ALL of the tires on the vehicles that my family owns.
 
Let me clarify that I am not saying all illegal immigrants are dirty horrible people, I am saying that MANY of them are. The way things are working right now- we have no say on what type of people are illegally crossing nor do we have any say if we just suddenly 'made them all legal'. I do think more control over who is made a legal citizen and who is not is necessary.
 
Tara, I apologize if I have went around in circles for "35" pages trying to redefine definitions to make people understand the reasons why I support a comprehensive immigration reform. I can assure you that if no one had tried to explain their reasons, the conversation would have been much shorter.
If anytime a study contradicts what you (plural) think you will call it biased, one sided, etc. and therefore you'll judge it to be invalid, then just stick to your preconceptions and don't try to justify your reasoning, because there isn't anything that will backup you up (as I haven't seen proof of anything supporting mass deportation, save some KNOWN hate group reports). The idea of "I don't care what would happen to the economy as long as our people are taken care first" is really cute and patriotic, but ultimately it is irresponsible. That idea also deals with "our people" versus "the aliens" when in reality it should be dealt as "we, humans." But again, I know this is really progressive of me for saying it.
Once again, I apologize for being thorough and for having tenacity (as someone that repped me said), but unfortunately I will not save words or hesitate to go back to further explain myself or a concept if needed. Some people like to write and read, others don't... :shrugs:
I for one have learned a few things through this thread. Kathy's idea was something I never heard before. It is a great idea, in my opinion. So let's keep trying to prove our sides right, just like attorneys do, in a civilized and courteous manner. And yes... Feliz cinco de mayo! :cheers:
 
jpccusa said:
Ta
If anytime a study contradicts what you (plural) think you will call it biased, one sided, etc. and therefore you'll judge it to be invalid, then just stick to your preconceptions and don't try to justify your reasoning, because there isn't anything that will backup you up
Click to expand...

You did not provide a study you provided an estimate based on a model and based on predictions. A study and proof are different from an estimates based on a hypothetical model.

I could have my husband program up a model will real quick that would come to the conclusion that it is vastly more beneficial to deport all the illegals, heck I could have him program up a model that showed we were in danger of being taken over by an undiscovered race of purple people, but just because some computers and some math were involved that doesn't make it so. Heck with a day of work we could upload it to a professional looking site and I could just not say it was made by us. Then I would have proof that purple people are coming to get us. Just because someone puts an estimate on the interwebs, that doesn't make it true, it doesn't make it a study, and it definitely doesn't mean it is proof.

As for being biased, the estimate is being trumpeted by the the Center for American Progress. All of the people listed as experts that you can contact to get more info about the findings area all email address @centerforamericanprogress.org email address. By their own admissions on their about us page they are a progressive think tank, I didn't just say they are biased because I decided they were. I said they were biased because they divulged their bias right in their about us page.

I don't need an estimate to back me up, the law backs me up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top