For your review:
Step I: Discard mandatory Minimum Wage.
Step II: Tie welfare to the "jobs that no one else will do."
FINALLY: Part III:
Step III: Enforce the laws already on the books.
2007-01-09 05:51:03 · 9 answers · asked by ? 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Qncy: That plan is already alive and well, I assure you.
2007-01-09 06:04:40 · update #1
The other 2 are still open for answers.
My position is opposed to any further governmental constraints on business, which only hurts our economy.
2007-01-09 06:06:18 · update #2
I DO NOT support "white power," at ANY level. Nice try, wise ***.
2007-01-09 06:48:42 · update #3
I agree with this! We should stop the PC and crack down with the law.
2007-01-09 07:42:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I did not read your parts I and II. But as far as I can tell the only realistic way of having a positive change in the current system on a local, state or federal level is to go with III. I would add for your consideration a IV: the introduction of government issued ID cards stating place of birth and place of naturalization when applicable. No ID = no job. No ID = no school. No ID = no medical benefits. And further V: tax, fine and punish the beejeezus out of any company or individual who knowingly and purposely hires illegal workers.
2007-01-09 05:59:25 · answer #2 · answered by Lyn 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Agreed. I would say (I believe, but am not 100% sure) that there are already fines on the books for businesses who hire illegals. If so, they need to be enforced. If not, they need to be introduced as law. Either way, I believe your three part system proposes some terrific ideas at curbing this rampant illegal immigration problem. Thanks for presenting actual solutions instead of just adding to the mindless bashing, its a big difference from the normal dribble that goes on here!
2007-01-09 05:58:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I agree with part I for reasons having nothing to do with immigration. I think minimum wage laws frequently hurt the people they are trying to help.
As for part II, Many people on welfare can't do those jobs. Those who can should.
I agree completely with part III.
I would add 2 more:
Part IV secure our border with barriers & a greatly expanded border patrol.
Part V enact legislation setting realistic quotas for legal immigration.
2007-01-09 07:09:17 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I don't like your idea. Step one will make our country weaker economically. Step two isn't even remotely feasible, and step three already isn't working.
Solving the problem of illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed, but both sides of the political spectrum have no answers yet. It is one of the few issues that the political parties try ti sidestep because they don't want to have to be the guy on the news who said _________ and gets killed in his next re-election bid for pissing off __________.
What we need to do is address the problem at the source, and not from the result. The source of the problem lies in where they are coming from, if you help them there, they won't feel the need to come here. If people in Mexico are living in dirt floor shacks that our homeless would look at and feel sorry for the people who have to live in that it's a problem. A dirty uncared for apartment in the slums is still better than where they are coming from. Fix that and we fix the problem.
2007-01-09 06:05:12 · answer #5 · answered by vertical732 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Wouldn't it be easier for Reds Staters to admit they are the spawn of generations of bigots. And their traditional dislike for other people, has morphed into Mexican disdain.
Think of all the "wall" money and "Border patrol" money that is being wasted. When the problem is really in the heart and soul of Red State America.
How about don't hire anyone that is not a documented legal employee. How about break the law go to jail.
As far as the Red Business cry of, "We can;t operate unless we hire illegals" then don't operate your criminal business get a job like the rest of us.
Go big Red Go
2007-01-09 06:28:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
where is the step that should immediately proceed step one??
You know the one, where it easier to deal drugs and jack cars than worry about any of that nonesense, so you have to just put twice the amount of money you save on all of that into law enforcement, creating a police state, a complete contradiction to the reason for having a 2nd amendment??
2007-01-09 05:59:56 · answer #7 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Excellent three-part program!!!
2007-01-09 05:56:40 · answer #8 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
of course...when did this "dont ask" rule come into effect..??? when i was younger..if you couldnt speak english, the cops or someone you ran into of authority invariably asked if you were a us citizen...whatever happened to that..???
2007-01-09 05:55:12 · answer #9 · answered by badjanssen 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋