Originally Posted by host

I can't fathom that describing/objecting to a conspiracy to avoid enforcing immigration laws and border and port security, that results in the amassing of a low wage alternate pool of undocumented, illegal resident U.S workers who now are "guessed" to number 11 milion, accompanied by an ongoing risk to "homeland" security that should be more of a concern to those who accept that a "war on terror" exists, and who support those who peddle that "line", would even be countered by someone self described as "right winger".

Wouldn't deliberately compromising border security and turning a blind eye to a steady influx of foreign trespassers; failing to vigorously enforce "homeland security" related laws, during "a time of war", be activities that you would energetically object to.....reverse government "regulation" that threatens the "heightened security" environment that you accept as legitimately existing, while I don't.

How could you support extra-constitutional authority for our president, yet seem so unconcerned about this security compromise of continuing illegal immigration?

aceventura3, follow the money....who benefits from the lax border and port security, and weak penalties levied against employers who hire illegal aliens, and/or who pay them in cash?

Your argument, above, does not respond to the fact of intentional "flooding" of the internal U.S. labor market with a "parllel", illegal, non-American, lower paid and easier to supervise, unaware of their rights and ineligible for labor law protections, labor pool.

If homebuilders, restaurantuers, landscapers, janitorial services, hotel chains, McDonald's, and individual wealthy householders were deprived of this "parallel" pool of workers, how would a shift to hiring the only alternative, labor....higher priced, rights aware, and harder to supervise, legal American
workers, impact negatively on anything of signifigance, other than on the "bottom line" of those who have taken advantage of the "parallel" labor pool, skirted the law, and experienced oversized labor profit margins or lower household service costs? These "parasites" (yeah...that is what they are....) would not be able to pass much of their increased costs onto the rest of us, in our competitive economic climate, and the "bar" would be raised, simultaneously and equally on the cost strutcture of all who have a need to buy these local wage earner's services.

Refrigerators and cars can be manufactured anywhere, but cooks, dishwashers, baby sitters, maids, and crop tillers have to be contracted and employed locally. The opportunists can lay off production workers on a whim, but their local "parallel" labor pool scam doesn't fit heightened security concerns, after the 9/11 hyped farce, "changed everything". Yet these neocon propagandists have been greedy and brazen enough to have it all....costitutional rights robbing "war powers", war profiteering, and continued unguarded ports and borders, and now the sham spectacle of immigration "reform" to cement their "parallel pool" more firmly in residence in "der Homeland".

Consider this unique survey that, since 1974, (2002 and 1999 select results displayed below) polled the opinions of nearly 400 U.S. elite and policy "leaders", and displayed the results along with public polling numbers, for camparison. The public clearly wanted immigration controls and job protection, much more than the "leaders". The public correctly viewed "world terrorism" as a much greater threat, and much sooner (in 1999) than the "leaders" did.

These survey results reinforce my point that the "leaders" serve only the priorities of themselves and of their wealthy sponsors with whom they share common interests, off in a class that is divorced from the priorities of the public that they pretend to work on behlaf of. This is first, a class issue. Control and gaming of the system for the benefit of an elite class, at the expense of everyone else......

2002 Excerpt (below) from results of survey described above:


Would the GM union workers have fared any better if they had "cooperated" with management via wage/benefit givebacks. Everything that management fed to U.S. workers over the last 20 years to persuade them to produce more and settle for lower compensation, was B.S. The workers saw their jobs move briefly, to Mexico first, and from there, to Asia. The greedy. former U.S. domeciled corporations, repatriated themselves to Bermuda corp. charters (as in, Tyco...), and left the U.S. with declining wages and a trade imbalance hemmorhage. Our "leaders" sided with the CEOs' greedy B.S.

<b>It wasn't the Florida legislators or the governor who represented the best interests of minimum wazge earners. It was the voters of Florida themselves, overwhelmingly, who changed the law, in spite of the oppositions from their elected officials...:</b>