| |
|
#16
04-01-2006, 02:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
so glad you asked Deanna my girl! If I was in charge, I'd make it mandatory for General Assistance (and maybe even TANF) recipients to have to put in so many hours of labor for their benefits. There are lots of community service, roadside cleanup and yes farm labor jobs that these folks could be doing. it would keep them off the streets in the day and give them a skill they could use on their resumes. I know that if a TANF recipient gets to the end of their 60 months and is still not self sufficient (ie working) they then do work experience (WEX) aka community service jobs. I think something should be worked out along those same lines for General Assistance folks...There is an outfit called "Labor Ready" in Chico that specializes in day jobs. I think we could expand upon that idea... The other side of the coin is that these jobs that arent paying a living wage, should be forced to come up to at least minimum wage (and not the Fed minimum either! that needs to be increased as well!) I also think those dumbass multinationals that outsource the jobs overseas ought to be forced to come back and bring the jobs back home. Also they should be fined for each day they stay away In any event, the reality is, the illegals DO tax the system, and as Ive said before, this country is at the breaking point. I dont know what the whole answer is, but I do think the corporations have gotten away with murder for far too long... 
|
|
#17
04-01-2006, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I like hearing what other people think on this topic. Unfortunately, I no longer live close to the US/Mexico border, so I'm not as up to snuff as I'd like to be on this issus. So right now I miss New Mexico - another place where illegals are flooding in....there are so many good stories to be had, but the local media isn't really doing as in-depth a job as they should. Frustrating. Anyway - yes, corporations have gotten away with murder for too long... I just don't think there are any easy solutions to this problem...and if they think that this legislation is going to help? Probably not, I mean if someone is determined enough - they'll get here...people die doing it everyday 
|
|
#18
04-01-2006, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
04-01-2006, 04:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
sad but true.... I think what the Legislature is trying to do is offer these folks a choice, to stay and become citizens or go back home after 6 years (I think thats the time frame) These workers definitely DO perform a vital service and they should be treated with respect.
|
|
#20
04-01-2006, 04:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#21
04-01-2006, 04:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Minutemen try to draw public awareness to insecure borders
**NOTE** I want to say that Im not necessarily supporting one side over the other by posting this article, but there are some compelling stats in this article that give you an idea of the scope of the problem.
Minutemen Gather for New Campaigns By ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 4 minutes ago Minuteman volunteers concerned over the continued flow of illegal immigrants across the border from Mexico gathered Saturday with lawn chairs, binoculars and cell phones for a new monthlong campaign aimed at raising public awareness of the issue. A year after their first watch-and-report operation along the border in southeastern Arizona, members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps embarked on a much larger effort in the busy migrant-smuggling corridor. "I'm concerned about what's not being done by the government — hasn't been done, apparently," said J. Glenn Sorensen, a retired school administrator now living in Flagstaff. Sorensen, who was not involved with the Minutemen last year, said he thinks the organization has accomplished part of its intended purpose already, "to draw national attention to an insecure border. I don't think anybody wants to close the border — I certainly don't — basically I think they need to be secure." No one in the group had any illusions about their campaign's effectiveness, since it targets a relatively short section of the border for just a month. However, it comes at a time when Congress is debating proposals seeking to reform immigration laws, which have drawn supporters of legitimizing illegal immigrants to demonstrations in a series of cities across the country. "This is like sticking a finger in the dike," said Ken Raymond, a retired electrical engineer and airplane mechanic from Tucson. Each month, thousands cross into Arizona. So far this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, agents have caught more than 48,000 illegal immigrants in the area staked out this weekend, up 53 percent from the same period a year earlier. About 150 volunteers had gathered by midmorning Saturday, with organizers expecting several hundred more. The group says it plans similar exercises along the border in California, New Mexico and Texas, and along the Canadian border in Washington, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York state. President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox support a so-called guest worker program that would allow illegal immigrants already holding jobs in the U.S. to stay. But the Minuteman organization's national leader, Chris Simcox, says the group's message is clear: "We want border security first." The Minuteman members arrived Saturday at a ranch about 35 miles southwest of Tucson before heading out to set up observation posts on private property about 30 miles north of the border. Along with their binoculars, cell phones and radios, a number wore sidearms. They were all under strict orders to call the Border Patrol and to avoid confronting intruders or drawing their weapons, said Simcox and Stacey O'Connell, in charge of the Arizona chapter. Although last year's patrols were nonviolent and disciplined, there are still concerns about having armed groups in a busy trafficking area, Gus Soto, a Border Patrol spokesman, said last week. Minuteman leaders have said that all the group's members have been screened to weed out members of racist organizations. Still, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union-Arizona say they're concerned over "the potential for taking actions and ... attempting to enforce immigration laws," executive director Alessandra Soler Meetze said. Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press
|
|
#22
04-01-2006, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
  
|
|
#23
04-01-2006, 04:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Immigration Q & A
Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News Q&A: Three Goals of Senate on Immigration By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press WriterFri Mar 31, 4:59 PM ET Immigration and border security proposals being debated in the Senate encompass three goals: to stem the influx of illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border, to deal with people already here illegally and to satisfy U.S. companies that say they need the workers. The task is anything but simple. And any legislation produced by the Senate would have to be negotiated with the House, which has passed a harsher bill that would make being an illegal immigrant a felony. Here are some questions and answers on the issue: Q: How many illegal immigrants are in the United States? A: The Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization in Washington, estimates between 11 million and 12 million. The number includes children. An estimated 850,000 illegal immigrants have arrived each year since 2000. Q: Where do they come from? A: About 6.2 million, or 56 percent, are from Mexico, according to Pew. An additional 2.5 million are from Central America and elsewhere in Latin America. About 1.5 million are from Asia, 600,000 from Europe and Canada and about 400,000 from Africa and other countries. Q: How many legal immigrants are in the country? A: About 13.1 million, not including naturalized citizens. Q: What is a green card? A: A green card, which is not necessarily green, signifies an immigrant has legal permanent residence, a right to stay in the United States as long as he or she doesn't commit a deportable act. The immigrants can hold any job in which U.S. citizenship is not a requirement. They are protected by all local, state and federal laws, can vote in state and local elections that don't require U.S. citizenship and can petition for visas for a spouse, parents and minor children. Permanent residents also must pay income taxes and men 18 to 25 must register with Selective Service. Q: How does a legal permanent resident become a citizen? A: Immigrants can apply for citizenship five years after becoming legal permanent residents. They must pay a naturalization fee, pass English, history and U.S. government tests and be of good moral character. Q: What are guest workers? A: Guest workers have employer-sponsored visas to work in the country for a limited time, usually two to seven years. Some are allowed to apply for permanent residency. Q: What do lawmakers want to do about illegal immigrants already in the country? A: The House has passed a bill that would make all illegal immigrants felons. It would also make offering them non-emergency aid or assistance a federal crime. The Senate essentially is looking at two proposals. The main differences between them are: _One would let them stay in the country for up to five years if they apply within six months and pay fines that start in the second year at $2,000 and rise by that much each year. But they would have to leave the country at the end of five years. They could then apply to return to the country as permanent residents or guest workers. As guest workers they can work in two-year intervals for up to six years, but must leave for a year between each two-year period. _The other allows them to stay for up to six years after clearing a background check and paying a $1,000 fine. If they pay all their taxes and don't get into trouble they can apply for permanent residency without having to leave the country. Critics call this approach amnesty, saying it is unfair to immigrants who get in line to come to the United States legally. Q: What is President Bush's position? A: Bush supports giving temporary legal guest worker status to illegal immigrants who have jobs and providing them with a path for becoming permanent residents and naturalized citizens. They could not get in front of legal residents already in that process. Q: What do businesses want? A: Businesses want a steady supply of legal workers to do jobs that they say Americans won't do. Most oppose proposals that would require them to verify the legal status of employees unless the government provides them with a low-cost way to do it. Q: Are illegal immigrants' children born in the United States citizens? A: Yes. Q: What do the various proposals in Congress do about border security? A: All of the proposals would add more Border Patrol agents, investigators to enforce laws against hiring illegal immigrants and inspectors to check for contraband at ports of entry. They would increase detention beds, and give more power and money to local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. Q: What about employers who hire illegal immigrants? A: Employers could be fined from $5,000 to $20,000 for each illegal immigrant they hire under a proposal by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Fines would range from $5,000 to $40,000, under the House bill per illegal immigrant. Under current law, the range is $250 to $10,000 per violation. Q: What are these proposals about a fence on the border between U.S. and Mexico? A: The House wants to erect several double fences totaling about 700 miles or about a third of the 2,000-mile border. The fences would be put in areas where illegal entry into the U.S. is most prevalent. Proposals in the Senate would create a "virtual" fence of more cameras, sensors and other technology to augment a larger Border Patrol. Q: Is anybody looking at allowing more immigrants to come to the U.S. legally? A: Various Senate proposal would increase the number of guest worker, family and other residency visas by 150,000 to 800,000 a year. Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
|
|
#24
04-01-2006, 04:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just for YOU David!
there's always more!
Migrant Issue Divides GOP Marches don't move California's hard-liners, including those serving Latinos. Unless someone gives, there is little hope for a compromise bill. By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer April 1, 2006 WASHINGTON — As massive pro-immigrant rallies have grabbed center stage in Southern California, the state's congressional delegation remains sharply divided over what to do about illegal immigration, with many Republicans — including those from districts with substantial Latino populations — holding firm in support of a get-tough approach. Several of those GOP lawmakers said they believed their stance reflected the attitudes of most of their constituents, despite the recent demonstrations. ADVERTISEMENT "I go to a church that is predominantly Latino," said Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-Diamond Bar), a sponsor of the House bill that has been a target of the protests. "And I get nothing but positive comments for what I'm trying to do.'' Miller and most of his 18 California Republican colleagues are part of a large group of GOP House members whose prime aim is to crack down on illegal immigration. Other California Republicans — and virtually all of the delegation's 33 Democrats — favor some version of the guest-worker program advocated by President Bush and business groups, including the state's important agriculture industry. The split within the delegation underscores the difficultly facing the GOP-controlled Congress in trying to reach an agreement on an immigration bill. Indeed, the hard-line position taken by many House Republicans is especially important because if they do not yield, a compromise bill has little chance of emerging. The House bill, which passed in December with support from all but three of the California Republicans, would tighten border security and impose new penalties on those who enter the U.S. illegally and on those who hire or help them. The Senate, in contrast, may adopt a broader bill that, along with being less punitive toward illegal immigrants, would create a guest-worker program and open a path to citizenship for those now in the country without the proper papers. California's House Republicans are not only divided over what kind of changes should be made to immigration law, but how they should talk about the subject. Rep. David Dreier of San Dimas, a member of the House GOP leadership, has urged colleagues to avoid "strident rhetoric." But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), appearing with other House Republicans at a Capitol Hill gathering Thursday assailing the Senate's legislation, declared, "We do not need more people from foreign countries coming in taking the jobs of Americans…. I say let the prisoners pick the fruits." The pro-immigrant rallies in the Los Angeles area have not escaped notice in Washington. But so far, they do not seem to have swayed opinions among the California House members who backed the House bill. In a typical comment, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) said, "There are a lot of people, in just as great a number [as the protesters], that you didn't see who are home fuming" about illegal immigration. "I went to a coffee shop [in his district] and I had five people walk up to me yelling about all these demonstrations, that it's not right," Calvert said. Many of his constituents, he added, "probably don't think the House bill is strong enough.'' That measure would make what is now a civil offense — illegal presence in the United States — a felony. It also would authorize the building of a 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Rep. Mary Bono (R-Palm Springs) recalled that during a recent stop at a grocery store in her district, "A woman came up to me, grabbed me by the arm and thanked me for my support of the House bill. She said, 'We're the silent majority, and we're very angry' '' about illegal immigration. If anything, the recent rallies may have hardened the views of some GOP lawmakers. "They've protested in front of my office,'' Miller said. "People started writing me letters of encouragement, 'Hang in there.' '' Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Visalia), whose district is more than 40% Latino and who voted against the House bill, said he believed protesters waving Mexican flags were hurting the push for an immigration bill that went beyond tougher law enforcement. "It would have had the opposite effect if they would have been waving American flags, saying, 'We want to be Americans.' '' Nunes said.
|
|
#26
04-01-2006, 05:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
and the cherry on top of the whole shebang: (op-ed piece from LA Times) Civil rights? How about lawlessness? The protesters seem intent on ending border restraints, not improving immigrants' lives. By Joe R. Hicks, JOE R. HICKS is vice president of the L.A.-based human relations organization Community Advocates, Inc. April 1, 2006 THE DEBATE over illegal immigration has reached a vigorous boil, with contrasting bills in the House and Senate and hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrating nationwide. The complexities of this debate seem lost on many of the protesters. Many claim that what lies beneath reform efforts is raw racism, leading to the view that the recent protests signal a new civil rights movement. It's simply not true. This nation's civil rights movement of the 1960s broke the back of white supremacy that prevented black Americans (who were citizens) from enjoying the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Undeniably, the freedoms codified by civil rights-era legislation have made life better for all Americans — regardless of skin color, gender or national origin. Now, many Latino immigrant-rights organizers and their sympathizers seem to be saying that there is some inherent right being expressed when people sneak into the country, thumb their noses at the law and make fools out of those who wait patiently in foreign lands for visas to come to the United States. It is quite clear that many of those participating in the demonstrations have adopted the stance of the beleaguered victim, perceiving frustration about illegal immigration as racism. Some comments have been painfully ignorant. One protester said: "I'm here to make sure that Mexicans get their freedom, their rights." During the student protests, the American flag was only occasionally on display, while the Mexican flag was omnipresent. A student said he was waving the latter in support of La Raza (the race), while another asked why illegal immigrants were "treated like criminals." Perhaps he wasn't aware that crossing the U.S. border without the required visa is now, and always has been, against the law. The participation of students, some as young as 13 and 14, is especially troubling given that all too many seemed clueless about the issues. Perhaps more puzzling is that some of the student walkouts took place on a day honoring the memory of Cesar Chavez. The great Chicano labor organizer held a march in 1969 from the Coachella and Imperial valleys to the Mexican border. Chavez and the United Farm Workers were protesting the use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Further, Chavez believed that illegal immigration was antithetical to the wage interests of the migrant workers he represented. What immigrant-rights groups refuse to acknowledge is that an unchecked flow of unskilled labor drives down wages for entry-level jobs, rendering all poor Americans, including millions of teenage workers, less than competitive. Are illegal workers doing jobs that Americans won't do? This often-heard argument is specious. The reality is that most Americans won't do entry-level labor for the meager wages often offered to undocumented workers. Activists seem focused on a political agenda that is fiercely anti-capitalist and intent on removing all border constraints. Nevertheless, protesters in Los Angeles were welcomed uncritically by the city's leaders. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told the crowd of 500,000 last Saturday, "There are no illegal people here today." He added: "America was built on the backs of immigrants." This is an obvious truism, but it obliterates the distinction between legal and illegal and mocks the rule of law. The immigration process continues to bring people from all parts of the world to these shores, but it has to be an orderly and lawful one. Lawful or not, the United States cannot absorb all of the people who aspire to come here. A 2005 Pew Hispanic Center survey on attitudes toward immigration, conducted in part in Mexico, found that an estimated 70 million adults in Mexico would come to the U.S. if they had the means and the opportunity. About half of those said they would be willing to move to and work in this country illegally. The study also found that 35% of Mexican college graduates want to come to the U.S., even if that means they would have to work at a job below their qualifications — and many also said they'd be willing to come illegally. What we are witnessing is not the birth of a new civil rights movement but the attempt to render meaningless the concept of border controls. Any march that can mobilize 500,000 people will get the attention of Washington's politicians, but this nation must not be deterred from securing its borders, enforcing the law and finding a way to humanely deal with the more than 11 million illegal residents already here.
|
|
#27
04-01-2006, 05:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I find myself in the most odd position of siding with some of the Republicans on this issue. I'm definitely against the guest worker idea.
The illegals shouldn't be prosecuted. We need to hold the Mexican government accountable. Something has to be done about this. We can't afford it in many ways. So if fences need to be built, employers prosecuted, then so be it.
|
|
#28
04-01-2006, 06:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#29
04-02-2006, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#30
04-02-2006, 06:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I was watching that Sunday Morning Politics show with George Stephanopolous (did I spell that right? LOL!) and I saw Barack Obama and a Senator from Virginia (or West Virginia, I didnt pay attention) talking about this issue. From what I gathered, the Republicans are MOST concerned about border security, and that we tried the "amnesty" approach over 20 years ago, and the problem hasnt improved. Based on that, I dont think "amnesty" is a good idea. I say we need to identify the illegals, and have the corporations/organizations who hired them pay for their passage home. And then, force Mexico to work on their side of the fence with penalties for any ILLEGAL entries into this country. The whole idea is that these thousands and THOUSANDS of people are here ILLEGALLY. That is a slap in the face to all the others that are trying to come here through the proper channels. Our borders ARE porous and we've been sadly lax about the issue. Well, I agree with the Reuplicans on this, our borders must be secure, and IMO that comes before worrying about the cheap labor for corporations. oh yeah the disclaimer: just my 2cents
|
 |
|
|
$5.40
1970s Pop - Hardcover By Brunning, Bob - GOOD
$3.40
Fleetwood Mac: The First 30 Years, Bob Brunning
$6.91
Bob Brunning Sound Trackers Music Series Hardcover 6 Book Lot Pop, Metal, Reggae
$59.99
Heavy Metal by Bob Brunning - Hardcover 1999 - VERY GOOD
$8.44
Linear Mode
