# Amnesty



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

Union or nonunion, we should all be concerned about the potential of amnesty. If it happens we'll all be working for peanuts.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

November 5th.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MTW said:


> November 5th.


That won't matter.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Chris1971 said:


> That won't matter.


:no:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MTW said:


> :no:


Some people can't accept reality. Nothing will change.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> I bet even a *meteorologist* would be able to predict how F---ed we are going to be after this move goes down. I'd like to personally thank all those who voted for the nastyist rat that ever set foot into the WH and further, they clapped and cheered at their victory, right here, and how they made merriment, I 'll let the dear readers remember the names for themselves. Mahalo to you jackasses.


applying the Us versus Them mentality changes nothing, regardless who is steering the ship . Corporations mike,corporations,... focus ....follow the money


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

Chris1971 said:


> Some people can't accept reality. Nothing will change.


you've reached ET's top five trolling members, congrats :whistling2::laughing:

Harry must be proud of you


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

360max said:


> applying the Us versus Them mentality changes nothing, regardless who is steering the ship . Corporations mike,corporations,... focus ....follow the money


Corporations pay you....:whistling2:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

360max said:


> you've reached ET's top five trolling members, congrats :whistling2::laughing:
> 
> Harry must be proud of you


Just trying to catch up with you.:whistling2::laughing:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> I bet even a *meteorologist* would be able to predict how F---ed we are going to be after this move goes down. I'd like to personally thank all those who voted for the nastyist rat that ever set foot into the WH and further, they clapped and cheered at their victory, right here, and how they made merriment, I 'll let the dear readers remember the names for themselves. Mahalo to you jackasses.


When Obama said he was going to "fundamentally transform America", he wasn't lying (for a change.)


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

360max said:


> you've reached ET's top five trolling members, congrats :whistling2::laughing:
> 
> Harry must be proud of you


I am in fact:laughing:


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

MTW said:


> When Obama said he was going to "fundamentally transform America", he wasn't lying (for a change.)


Truth ...


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

MTW said:


> When Obama said he was going to "fundamentally transform America", he wasn't lying (for a change.)


Well, it must of been fundamentally screwed up for all those to cheer that speech. And in a roundabout sort of way he's right. The proof is in the fact that we got him for 8 years.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

If all of the Mexicans come here, who is going to build all of those Cadillacs in those Mexican auto plants?


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Let me see if I understand this fear: We already have a whole bunch of unskilled illegals here working for peanuts, and if we make them legal thereby putting them on the government radar and requiring employers to pay legal wages and benefits, somehow that jeopardizes all our jobs?


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Big John said:


> Let me see if I understand this fear: We already have a whole bunch of unskilled illegals here working for peanuts, and if we make them legal thereby putting them on the government radar and requiring employers to pay legal wages and benefits, somehow that jeopardizes all our jobs?


Then we get even more illegals coming in competing with legal citizens for work and thus the cycle continues.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

aftershockews said:


> Then we get even more illegals coming in competing with legal citizens for work and thus the cycle continues.


 Supply and demand. It's almost as though the solution is to stop trying to prosecute the illegals and go after the people who keep hiring them instead of American citizens.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Big John said:


> Supply and demand. It's almost as though the solution is to stop trying to prosecute the illegals and go after the people who keep hiring them instead of American citizens.


Wasn't Arizona trying to do something like that but the Feds stepped and said no?


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Problem is, low wage workers get in, low skills, low pay. More come in, Competing for the bottom tier jobs.
These low wage workers require public assistance.
We are now subsidizing employers that hire low wage workers.
Which we would have to agree we want if we choose to use the services of these services.

We have to decide what the ceiling is going to be or better yet, how many can we support?
The answer isn't zero.
Is it 1% of our 300 million population
Is it 10% of our population


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Big John said:


> Let me see if I understand this fear: We already have a whole bunch of unskilled illegals here working for peanuts, and if we make them legal thereby putting them on the government radar and requiring employers to pay legal wages and benefits, somehow that jeopardizes all our jobs?


We already have 92million unemployed as it is now, they should all be employed first .


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Black Dog said:


> We already have 92million unemployed as it is now, they should all be employed first .


You would think but that is now how it works here anymore.


----------



## dawgs (Dec 1, 2007)

They should all have to do a 4-year stent with our military before being granted any citizenship.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

dawgs said:


> They should all have to do a 4-year stent with our military before being granted any citizenship.


A 3rd world army. We are fighting wars in 3rd world countries, why not?


----------



## dawgs (Dec 1, 2007)

aftershockews said:


> A 3rd world army. We are fighting wars in 3rd world countries, why not?


They can be our new ground troops, the front liners.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

jrannis said:


> ...We have to decide what the ceiling is going to be or better yet, how many can we support?
> The answer isn't zero.
> Is it 1% of our 300 million population
> Is it 10% of our population


 No argument. But there's also the question of how do we best tackle this problem? And seeing as how immigration and customs is the biggest law-enforcement expenditure in our budget and we're still fighting this, it doesn't seem like "round-em-up-and-ship-em-out" solution is working very well.

I think we need to lower the barriers that are in place on legal immigration that make it very difficult for people to gain citizenship when they can contribute something useful to our society.

I think we need to start seriously looking at removing the incentives that are in place that allow so many unskilled illegals to come in and establish lives so easily. 

The idea of rounding up millions of people for deportation is not only absurd, but it'd be massively expensive. So if we're worried about what this is costing us, that price-tag should be near the top of the list of concerns.


Black Dog said:


> We already have 92million unemployed as it is now, they should all be employed first .


 You need to double check that number. It is wrong.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Big John said:


> No argument. But there's also the question of how do we best tackle this problem? And seeing as how immigration and customs is the biggest law-enforcement expenditure in our budget and we're still fighting this, it doesn't seem like "round-em-up-and-ship-em-out" solution is working very well.
> 
> I think we need to lower the barriers that are in place on legal immigration that make it very difficult for people to gain citizenship when they can contribute something useful to our society.
> 
> ...


In your opinion....



*The Facts*

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does show that there are *nearly 92 million Americans out of the workforce.* But dig into the numbers and it is clear that it’s silly to say all of these people are “on the sidelines” and need action from the president and the Congress.
This BLS document shows that the civilian noninstitutional population—essentially, people over the age of 16–is nearly 247 million. The civil labor force is 155 million, with a participation rate of 62.8 percent. So that leaves nearly 92 million “not in the labor force.” What does that mean?
Essentially, it means everyone above the age of 16 who is not working. The BLS breaks it down even further, and it quickly becomes clear that the vast majority of these people are retired or simply are not interested in working, such as stay-at-home parents.




**********


The WP paints the facts as if we are at full employment when it is clear we are not even close.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Big John said:


> You need to double check that number. It is wrong.


Actually he is correct but.

According to the Washington Post 



> This BLS document shows that the civilian noninstitutional population—essentially, people over the age of 16–is nearly 247 million. The civil labor force is 155 million, with a participation rate of 62.8 percent. So that leaves nearly 92 million “not in the labor force.” What does that mean?
> 
> Essentially, it means everyone above the age of 16 who is not working. *The BLS breaks it down even further, and it quickly becomes clear that the vast majority of these people are retired or simply are not interested in working, such as stay-at-home parents.*


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Harry beat me to it.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Just something I ran across.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHJ8aHakNq0

I know I know, it's Fox but any thoughts?

Here is the link to the article.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

aftershockews said:


> Just something I ran across.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHJ8aHakNq0
> 
> I know I know, it's Fox but any thoughts?
> ...


Watch this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t8MBSPzn7Y


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Black Dog said:


> In your opinion....


 Opinion nothing. You quoted a number that had nothing to do with the amount of people participating in the labor force. We could have 100% employment and those people would _still not be participating in the labor force._

So when you say nonsense like "we need to employ 92 million people" it means one of two things: 
1) Either you think that all those retirees, disabled people, students, and stay-at-home parents need to get jobs. 
2) Or else you're just spouting numbers you heard on Limbaugh that you never bothered to actually fact-check.


----------



## Mshow1323 (Jun 9, 2012)

My guess is that the same people that are blasting amnesty today, were shooting off fireworks back in '86.
"Long live the Savior of Modern Conservatism, no way he would have stood for those shanagins"

Oh wait, he did

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Big John said:


> Opinion nothing. You quoted a number that had nothing to do with the amount of people participating in the labor force. We could have 100% employment and those people would _still not be participating in the labor force._
> 
> So when you say nonsense like "we need to employ 92 million people" it means one of two things:
> 1) Either you think that all those retirees, disabled people, students, and stay-at-home parents need to get jobs.
> 2) Or else you're just spouting numbers you heard on Limbaugh that you never bothered to actually fact-check.


You can label them what ever you want but the fact remains that 92 million people cannot find jobs.

The labels affixed to them is simply a way to cover up the real issue like 50 million are on food stamps:laughing:

You're going to kill me John...:laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Illegals are a diversion to cover the entirely effed up visa debacle. 

~CS~


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Mshow1323 said:


> My guess is that the same people that are blasting amnesty today, were shooting off fireworks back in '86.
> "Long live the Savior of Modern Conservatism, no way he would have stood for those shanagins"
> 
> Oh wait, he did
> ...


Not me in fact Reagan said it was his worst mistake, and it caused down pressure on wages even when wages should have shot up big time.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Mshow1323 said:


> My guess is that the same people that are blasting amnesty today, were shooting off fireworks back in '86.
> "Long live the Savior of Modern Conservatism, no way he would have stood for those shanagins"
> 
> Oh wait, he did
> ...


Yes but Regan also wanted to secure the border.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/15/reagan-immigration-reform-house-column/2518351/



> But in working with Congress, his support for amnesty was clearly a quid pro quo. Amnesty was just one component of a full complement of legal statutes designed to secure the U.S. border, strengthen enforcement procedures and improve the legal immigration system with background checks. It was meant to be a multifaceted solution to tackle a tough problem and, of premier importance, secure our border.





> As history proved, while about 3 million people who had come to the U.S. illegally eventually became legal citizens under the 1986 law, the bill's other measures failed. The reasons? A shortage of congressional funding to enforce the law; lax enforcement procedures at the federal, state and local level; objections by businesses and the agriculture community, which flouted the law in support of their bottom line; and inattentive, overburdened or discouraged enforcement official


Now have we had any democrats speak out with any viable ideas on securing our borders?


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

aftershockews said:


> Now have we had any democrats speak out with any viable ideas on securing our borders?


Never mind Harry Reid says our borders are secure. 



> As tens of thousands of illegal aliens stream across our southern border, completely overwhelming border patrol and generating a humanitarian crisis, Nevada Senator and Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid has a message for the nation: our border is completely secure.


----------



## Mshow1323 (Jun 9, 2012)

aftershockews said:


> Yes but Regan also wanted to secure the border.
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/15/reagan-immigration-reform-house-column/2518351/
> 
> 
> ...


Reagan's Act and Obama's proposal are actually quite similar. 
http://www.usamnesty.org



> THE PROPOSED IMMIGRATION REFORM AND AMNESTY WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
> Secure our borders:
> Obama and Biden want to preserve the integrity of our borders. They support additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.





> Create Secure Borders
> Obama and Biden want to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Mshow1323 said:


> Reagan's Act and Obama's proposal are actually quite similar.
> http://www.usamnesty.org


The question now is. Will it work this time?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Same bait / switch, different potus.... all the fortune 500's who make out will be greasin' their rides....:whistling2:~CS~


----------



## Mshow1323 (Jun 9, 2012)

aftershockews said:


> The question now is. Will it work this time?


It will, IF securing the border is number one. And number two, if the offending countries increase their citizens desire to stay in their home countries. 
Immigration, wheather it be legal or illegal will never end, if there is a better place to live other than where you currently reside. People will always look and move toward better opportunity.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Mshow1323 said:


> It will, IF securing the border is number one. And number two, if the offending countries increase their citizens desire to stay in their home countries.
> Immigration, wheather it be legal or illegal will never end, if there is a better place to live other than where you currently reside. People will always look and move toward better opportunity.


The problem with that is that the offending countries economies make billions from immigrants crossing our borders plus what we send in aid. so I doubt the offending countries are going to do anything to keep it's poorer citizens when they make more money having them come here to the U.S.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

It all hints of extortion to me....

~CS~


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

I remember when I was younger back in south Texas there were raids in my hometown to collect the illegals. I forget the years, I would have to guess the late 70's early 80's.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Chris1971 said:


> Union or nonunion, we should all be concerned about the potential of amnesty. If it happens we'll all be working for peanuts.


And you are posting this in the union section for what reason?

You might as well start a poop thread in the main section Cletis.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

macmikeman said:


> I bet even a *meteorologist* would be able to predict how F---ed we are going to be after this move goes down. I'd like to personally thank all those who voted for the nastyist rat that ever set foot into the WH and further, they clapped and cheered at their victory, right here, and how they made merriment, I 'll let the dear readers remember the names for themselves. Mahalo to you jackasses.


Oh look, our resident tin foil hat wearing can't find his tuckus with a flashlight bag of rocks.

Putz.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Big John said:


> Let me see if I understand this fear: We already have a whole bunch of unskilled illegals here working for peanuts, and if we make them legal thereby putting them on the government radar and requiring employers to pay legal wages and benefits, somehow that jeopardizes all our jobs?


It makes sense if you take your brains, saute them in stupid and shove them up your backside, you know, like your typical tea bagging 'patriot'.

Just here to watch this thread burn down in flames now.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

Mshow1323 said:


> Reagan's Act and Obama's proposal are actually quite similar.
> http://www.usamnesty.org


You would trust Obama AND Biden to secure our borders????? I wouldn't trust either one of them as night watchman at a mattress factory. :no:


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

eejack said:


> It makes sense if you take your brains, saute them in stupid and shove them up your backside, you know, like your typical tea bagging 'patriot'.
> 
> Just here to watch this thread burn down in flames now.


Are you for or against illegal immigration Jackster? How are you going to get an electrical license without legal status?


----------

