Immigration After elections??

Question

Does anyone else see this like I do??
I think all these candidates are trying too hard to convince the American people that they will grab the bull by the horns and fix the immigration problem in the US.
In my opinion they will slowly but surely start to change their views as soon as they are elected. They know the economic effect will be negative if they give the boot to ALL illegals here in the US. Not only that, most of the candidates have in someway helped the illegals get more benefits in the cities they live in. Some have even hired them to keep their gardens in shape.
So does any one else agree with my prediction??

demorat, I can't agree with you on this one, i'm no economist, but I’m sure that if business are confronted with higher wages to pay, and more benefit plans, THEY will go overseas and look for cheaper labor. Not only that, the ones that can’t find cheaper labor and aren’t able to go overseas will ultimately go out of business.

Answer 1

I don't agree. I think there are two possibilities:

1) right after the election, they ratchet up enforcement in a few areas, targetting the most sympathetic poeple possilbe: people who are technically illegal but basically good, hard-working; small familly businesses, etc. Once they get a little negative momentum going, the ram through another Amnesty - much more generous than the last one - before the anti-immigration crowd can regroup.

2) they forget all about the issue, leaving the status quo of non-enforcement, until the next election.

Answer 2

The economic benefit from illegals mostly goes to business owners and investors. An average taxpayer suffers because they are subsidizing this cheaper labor source by paying extra taxes for such things as schools, welfare, WIC, housing, crimes commited, medical, etc.

This is why we need to look at the candidates closely. Hillary, Edwards and Obama have been open borders advocates in the way they vote at all times. Even to the extreme of voting to keep ilegals here that have commited felonies. No Dem candidate for Prez has a record against amnesty. McCain is a traitor to the republican party with his amnesty attempts. Guliani just lies about his true colors and would not take a hard stance against illegals. Romney flip flops but would probably be against amnesty. Thompson "seems" like the best choice of the front runners.

But - Tancredo and Paul are far better choices then any of the above.

Answer 3

That's exactly what happened in the off year election for Governor of Texas. The incumbent, sensing the will of the people, had a TV spot showing him walking the border zone with the local sheriffs, explaining how much money he would put into enforcement, blah, blah, blah. As soon as he was re-elected, that rhetoric was dropped. Nothing has been done by him. He was really just about to loose support of many active conservatives, but this swayed them enough to give him the office. It was a blatant pandering to people's fears.
Watch the primaries this next go round and make sure true conservatives get the party's nod for election.

Answer 4

No. They are lying to get elected. The economy will improve once the freeloaders and scabs are removed but since they won't do it we may never know. A few of the candidates are telling the truth but since you didn't specify I was referring to the favored 4 of both parties.

Answer 5

whoever is elected would need to do what he/she say she would do (to get voted) or else there would be protests.