quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
I'm not even willing to talk about a solution until we actually seal the southern border.

That would be the first step to my version of immigration reform, as that is the first step to the solution.

Maybe not my 1st step, but definitely one of the firsts. I do believe kicking up the teeth of the penalties for employers knowingly hiring illegals should be stiffer. Maybe securing the border (can't really "seal" it, and there have been people who have argued against border solutions based on someone using the phrase "seal the border") and stiffening the penalties would be co-first steps. lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

People claiming to want smaller govt. while asking for 'sealing the border' are laughably delusional. Or math illiterate. We can't AFFORD the bodies on the ground and most certainly can't afford the physical structures and infrastructure to block simple peasants from defeating the 'fencing'. Priced out fencing by the foot that even actually delays an assault by just Harbor Freight cordless reciprocating saws? My Goggling says we have 1933 MILES of fence and barriers to construct? Kids with spades dig under what they don't have the tools to cut through? And this is just the 'walk over' illegal immigration. Then there is all that water border, airports and 'tourist visa' flows. All the illegal Asians and S. Americans working in my community came in on airliners through Customs.
People with functional brains and some understanding of Ecology are in horror of the collateral damage of any massive fencing project. The footprint of any effective policing program is probably even more socially disruptive for the border areas.
The problem with legal immigration is simple, it takes massive restructuring of 'legal' quotas to even begin to supply the numbers that illegals offer the US economy. I'm wondering just who can get the huge increases in quotas through the various special interest mine fields of the current congress? Or the funding for the required bureaucracy to manage it.
Figuring out how to reduce the drug hunger of middle class Americans and fix the many dysfuntional effects of the multi-national favoring NAFTA to return some stability and growth to the Central American economies takes real effort and thought, not the knee jerk brain dead emphasis on the symptom of illegals instead of the real source of the forces behind mass migration. I'm in doubt the endemic corruption of the Latin cultures fixes during our lifetimes. It well predates the Discovery of the Americas.The US version is just better disguised as Wall Street?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

I'm not even willing to talk about a solution until we actually seal the southern border.

Good luck with that, as an open border is the goal

Not much of a secret

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
I'm not even willing to talk about a solution until we actually seal the southern border.

That would be the first step to my version of immigration reform, as that is the first step to the solution.

Maybe not my 1st step, but definitely one of the firsts. I do believe kicking up the teeth of the penalties for employers knowingly hiring illegals should be stiffer. Maybe securing the border (can't really "seal" it, and there have been people who have argued against border solutions based on someone using the phrase "seal the border") and stiffening the penalties would be co-first steps. lol

Yes these things should happen at the same time. My earlier point was that before you could prove that the employer didn't take proper precautions you have to prove that they actually hired illegals. So the first step in that process is to prove they are illegal. If the government says it is ok for them to be here, even though they are illegal I don't see how you can prosecute the employer.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

it would seem to me that those who knowingly hire illegals constantly could (or should be) tried under rico.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
I'm not even willing to talk about a solution until we actually seal the southern border.

That would be the first step to my version of immigration reform, as that is the first step to the solution.

Maybe not my 1st step, but definitely one of the firsts. I do believe kicking up the teeth of the penalties for employers knowingly hiring illegals should be stiffer. Maybe securing the border (can't really "seal" it, and there have been people who have argued against border solutions based on someone using the phrase "seal the border") and stiffening the penalties would be co-first steps. lol

Yes these things should happen at the same time. My earlier point was that before you could prove that the employer didn't take proper precautions you have to prove that they actually hired illegals. So the first step in that process is to prove they are illegal. If the government says it is ok for them to be here, even though they are illegal I don't see how you can prosecute the employer.

I see your point, but he didn't EO amnesty. The President suspended deportation for a great many. That we're not deporting them doesn't make them legally here, nor does it change that they are still illegal aliens.

Btw, what does any of this (and I'm not calling you out specifically, because I've added to it, too) have to do with Kansas' restrictions on EBT usage?!? lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

it would seem to me that those who knowingly hire illegals constantly could (or should be) tried under rico.

Interesting point. I can't see it being a RICO issue just for hiring an undocumented worker. But, if it could be shown that the business owner was participating, even as the end user, of human trafficking; that might be grounds for seizure of the whole business and all assets under RICO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

it would seem to me that those who knowingly hire illegals constantly could (or should be) tried under rico.

Interesting point. I can't see it being a RICO issue just for hiring an undocumented worker. But, if it could be shown that the business owner was participating, even as the end user, of human trafficking; that might be grounds for seizure of the whole business and all assets under RICO.

Hiring illegals means you do not pay taxes on them which is defrauding the government. Hence, RICO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

it would seem to me that those who knowingly hire illegals constantly could (or should be) tried under rico.

Interesting point. I can't see it being a RICO issue just for hiring an undocumented worker. But, if it could be shown that the business owner was participating, even as the end user, of human trafficking; that might be grounds for seizure of the whole business and all assets under RICO.

Hiring illegals means you do not pay taxes on them which is defrauding the government. Hence, RICO.

Defrauding the government is not necessarily racketeering. And hiring a few undocumented workers might not be organized crime.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act


Naa, RICO wouldn't kick in unless you could prove an organized crime ring was involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

it would seem to me that those who knowingly hire illegals constantly could (or should be) tried under rico.

Interesting point. I can't see it being a RICO issue just for hiring an undocumented worker. But, if it could be shown that the business owner was participating, even as the end user, of human trafficking; that might be grounds for seizure of the whole business and all assets under RICO.

Hiring illegals means you do not pay taxes on them which is defrauding the government. Hence, RICO.

Defrauding the government is not necessarily racketeering. And hiring a few undocumented workers might not be organized crime.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act


Naa, RICO wouldn't kick in unless you could prove an organized crime ring was involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

People claiming to want smaller govt. while asking for 'sealing the border' are laughably delusional. Or math illiterate. We can't AFFORD the bodies on the ground and most certainly can't afford the physical structures and infrastructure to block simple peasants from defeating the 'fencing'. Priced out fencing by the foot that even actually delays an assault by just Harbor Freight cordless reciprocating saws? My Goggling says we have 1933 MILES of fence and barriers to construct? Kids with spades dig under what they don't have the tools to cut through? And this is just the 'walk over' illegal immigration. Then there is all that water border, airports and 'tourist visa' flows. All the illegal Asians and S. Americans working in my community came in on airliners through Customs.
People with functional brains and some understanding of Ecology are in horror of the collateral damage of any massive fencing project. The footprint of any effective policing program is probably even more socially disruptive for the border areas.
The problem with legal immigration is simple, it takes massive restructuring of 'legal' quotas to even begin to supply the numbers that illegals offer the US economy. I'm wondering just who can get the huge increases in quotas through the various special interest mine fields of the current congress? Or the funding for the required bureaucracy to manage it.
Figuring out how to reduce the drug hunger of middle class Americans and fix the many dysfuntional effects of the multi-national favoring NAFTA to return some stability and growth to the Central American economies takes real effort and thought, not the knee jerk brain dead emphasis on the symptom of illegals instead of the real source of the forces behind mass migration. I'm in doubt the endemic corruption of the Latin cultures fixes during our lifetimes. It well predates the Discovery of the Americas.The US version is just better disguised as Wall Street?

So we surrender?
The sudden liberal devotion to smaller government and less spending on this issue is like the conversion of some to tates rights when the issue of ccws being recognized everywhere like driver's license, it reeks of insincerity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

it would seem to me that those who knowingly hire illegals constantly could (or should be) tried under rico.

Interesting point. I can't see it being a RICO issue just for hiring an undocumented worker. But, if it could be shown that the business owner was participating, even as the end user, of human trafficking; that might be grounds for seizure of the whole business and all assets under RICO.

Hiring illegals means you do not pay taxes on them which is defrauding the government. Hence, RICO.

Defrauding the government is not necessarily racketeering. And hiring a few undocumented workers might not be organized crime.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act


Naa, RICO wouldn't kick in unless you could prove an organized crime ring was involved.

But RICO gives them a way to stick it to business men while giving illegals a pass. After all giving the illegals a pass is what immigration reform is all about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

it would seem to me that those who knowingly hire illegals constantly could (or should be) tried under rico.

Interesting point. I can't see it being a RICO issue just for hiring an undocumented worker. But, if it could be shown that the business owner was participating, even as the end user, of human trafficking; that might be grounds for seizure of the whole business and all assets under RICO.

Hiring illegals means you do not pay taxes on them which is defrauding the government. Hence, RICO.

Defrauding the government is not necessarily racketeering. And hiring a few undocumented workers might not be organized crime.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act


Naa, RICO wouldn't kick in unless you could prove an organized crime ring was involved.

But RICO gives them a way to stick it to business men while giving illegals a pass. After all giving the illegals a pass is what immigration reform is all about.

"Business men " can do no wrong in your eyes eh ?

An interesting example of ideological blindness for sure

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well than explain it to me....someone talks about actually prosecuting those that break the law and all of a sudden mister law and order himself see's a political agenda at work.

Explain it ,I'll try to understand

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

You win a kewpie doll where you find the post where I expressed a desire to prosecute employers while giving the illegals a pat on the back.


You are starting to make sanity look......for want of a better word,sane