Biometric work card

[bowhunter]

Like it will really keep people from hiring illegals. Maybe this has been posted but I searched and didnt see it here, seen it on fox news today. Sounds like the big agenda behind it is they would have almost every US citizens finger prints on file. They already have mine from military and CCW etc but I still dont like it! I really hope it dont pass, but under this administration they would have a good chance. They would probably charge us for getting a work card. I heard it is a REPUB and DEM pushing for it and they are meeting with osama as early as this week on it, anyone know more about it?

[theGinsue]

Sounds like the big agenda behind it is they would have almost every US citizens finger prints on file. They already have mine from military and CCW etc but I still dont like it!

There's always an agenda; isn't there?!

Same situation here for my prints (oh yeah, and my arrest), don't like any of hte reasons they have my prints.

[sniper7]

they already have my prints so it doesn't really matter now.

too bad they can't give incentives to businesses to turn in illegal immigrants...would save a ton of tax dollars.

basically it would be nice to have a business that starts to employ all illegal aliens, they get comfortable, then BAM!!! INS!!!! and off they go, all possessions then belong to the .gov to be resold with some portions going to the business for partial lost revenue, and get them temp works ASAP.

[BigBear]

basically it would be nice to have a business that starts to employ all illegal aliens, they get comfortable, then BAM!!! INS!!!! and off they go, all possessions then belong to the .gov to be resold with some portions going to the business for partial lost revenue, and get them temp works ASAP.

Wouldn't work. Remember a few months ago in Boston? INS got a bunhc of illegals working on a construction site, took them in, fingerprinted them, etc and then DROVE THEM BACK TO WORK AND BOUGHT THEM LUNCH ON THE WAY!!!!!!!! (Smakcing head against wall smiley needs to go here but I cna't find it.)

[Pancho Villa]

While I understand the security problems with no border security, I still dispute that most illegals are that big a deal.

My dad was illegal, he got amnesty the first time around (iirc.) Because of that I'm an American citizen, for which I am grateful.

If any of you ever had to deal with getting from x country into America I think you'd understand why so many otherwise honest mexis border hop. If you don't have a degree, money by the boatload or some absolutely vital skill, you have basically 0 chance of getting in. Thats ridiculous. I have a friend from Ecuador who is an opera singer, he has to pay thousands of dollars every year taking classes from a local uni to keep his student visa current - because he just can't get on the road to citizenship. He has never broken any law in his life, is an entertaining singer and standup guy. In Ecuador he'd be unemployed and quite poor; here he makes a decent living. The fact that he is more or less barred from becoming a US citizen within any reasonable amount of time is a farce of justice.

If you want to stop illegal immigration, stop making legal immigration a joke. The market will tell us how many immigrants with a particular job set is too many, because there won't be any more jobs and they'll go home. Govt quotas don't work with gas, cars or any other material item - they don't work with labor, either. If you are scared that some immigrant is going to lower your wages and/or steal your job, well...you can't cheat the market. If they don't lower your wages or steal your job by coming here, the same thing will happen when your job is shipped overseas - or just goes out of business entirely due to being uncompetitive in a global market. Govt protection of your wages / job isn't gonna help you there.

When that is done - and only then - will the border patrol actually have a reasonable chance at stopping terrorists or dangerous criminals from entering illegally. Right now the immigration controls create a huge market for coyotes - $5,000 a head or so to sneak you over. Thats big bucks. A lot of those guys don't care whether the guy they're smuggling over just wants to pick strawberries for 5 bucks an hour, or if he wants to commit acts of terrorism, or if he's a dangerous psychopath with a wrap sheet a mile long. When you get the strawberry pickers in a fast line that checks for criminal history, terrorist ties and a medical exam to make sure they aren't taking any dangerous, communicable diseases with them, you'll eliminate that market and make it both more expensive to get people over and easier for the border patrol to keep them out - since they won't have the camoflage of thousands of non-violent illegals to hide among.

It could be done quite easily. Slap a reasonable price tag on the exam to get in, in order to pay for the medical exam, background check and so forth. Could even be a small money-maker for the .gov, not that they'd spend it on anything worthwhile.

[BigBear]

Good points... I wonder what the actual process entails. I know that my great grandparents came over from Scotland... but I know nothing of their journey to actually obtain legal status.

[TennVol]

I am a big fan of keeping illegal aliens out of our country for a number of reasons.

...And yes I do have a dog in the fight. My wife is from the Rep of Panama. After we were married, I spent a lot of time and money paving the way for her to become a US citizen, which she is very proud to be. She feels the same way about illegal immigration as I do.

[Pancho Villa]

"I [know/married/am related to] x immigrant who feels the same way about this issue as I do" is a really poor argument.

There's hispanics in the Minute Men. That doesn't automatically shield the MM from criticism of any type.

I happen to have a dad who was born in Mexico. That does not make my opinion on illegal immigration more or less valid. My arguments do.

I won't drop into troll-bait like jumpstart has put here, but for the record guys, ethno-centrism is racism. Accessed with just a few taps of the keyboard:

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Policies to encourage the "breeding" of "white christians" is more or less textbook racism and hey, consequentially, one of the hallmarks of some of the more colorful autocracies in the 20th century. I certainly don't want any of my money going to subsidize your welfare babies, of any race, let alone ones earmarked specifically for "white christians." But I guess we are all chattel slaves to the govt whose purpose is to encourage a strong, unified volk. What could possibly go wrong with that kind of philosophy, right guys?

I'm out of this thread. There are differences in policy that I can at least tolerate, if not understand, and there are people who declare themselves outside of the realm of civil discussion.

[Jumpstart]

"I [know/married/am related to] x immigrant who feels the same way about this issue as I do" is a really poor argument.

There's hispanics in the Minute Men. That doesn't automatically shield the MM from criticism of any type.

I happen to have a dad who was born in Mexico. That does not make my opinion on illegal immigration more or less valid. My arguments do.

I won't drop into troll-bait like jumpstart has put here, but for the record guys, ethno-centrism is racism. Accessed with just a few taps of the keyboard:

Policies to encourage the "breeding" of "white christians" is more or less textbook racism and hey, consequentially, one of the hallmarks of some of the more colorful autocracies in the 20th century. I certainly don't want any of my money going to subsidize your welfare babies, of any race, let alone ones earmarked specifically for "white christians." But I guess we are all chattel slaves to the govt whose purpose is to encourage a strong, unified volk. What could possibly go wrong with that kind of philosophy, right guys?

I'm out of this thread. There are differences in policy that I can at least tolerate, if not understand, and there are people who declare themselves outside of the realm of civil discussion.

All discussion here has been civil IMHO. Just because you are seemingly uncomfortable with the topic you deem it "uncivil"? I would disagree with your perception. The topic was biometric cards. We discussed it and as typical, it takes it course. Yet you seemingly stoop to slight me with with soft innuendos of racism and a "troll" because I dare speak what others may be thinking, and because I am white and commenting on racial issues? I could say that smacks of racism on your part, but I will refrain.
As for you not wanting to have your money going to any welfare babies, "let alone earmarked specifically for white Christians", isn't that a racist statement by you? Okay let's say no. Then I would be free to say I don't want any of my money earmarked specifically for brown illegal aliens. Yet my tax money does. (How is that fair?) So if that last statement makes me "racist", then by that measure, so does your statement about white Christians.
It not really about race at all, just fairness. I just starting to ask for it is all.

[Pancho Villa]

I'm not doing innuendo. If you believe in ethnocentrism you are a racist. That simple.

I didn't say you were uncivil in your methods, I said your beliefs were outside the realm of civil discussion. Civil discussion takes place with some ideas presupposed - for example, that all actors will hold reason as the highest arbiter, hold no particular ill will towards each other, etc. A racist falls outside that category, even if he cries to everyone that he's not a racist. I would react the same way to someone who wanted to 'debate' eating children.